porting from C++Builder

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • Daniel James
    #46
    Re: porting from C++Builder

    In article news:<eeSFtncPJ HA.3560@TK2MSFT NGP02.phx.gbl>, Ben Voigt
    [C++ MVP] wrote:
    A quick look at that doesn't seem to have a zero-price-tag
    requirement. Can you tell me what statement you are referring to?
    I was referring to the fact that they make Qt available under
    different licences that allow the users to release their products in
    different ways. In particular: if you don't want to release your
    application under the GPL you have to use (and pay for) their
    commercial licence, but if your application is Open Source you can use
    their (free) Open Source licence.

    I don't see an explicit statement that an Open Source Qt application
    must be zero-cost, but it does say

    The Qt Commercial Editions must be used for proprietary,
    commercial development.

    which rules out using the Open Source licence for anything but
    non-commercial software. I have a little difficulty in imagining many
    viable scenarios in which non-commercial software can be anything
    other than zero-cost ... charityware, perhaps?

    Cheers,
    Daniel.


      Comment

      • Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]
        #47
        Re: porting from C++Builder



        "Daniel James" <wastebasket@no spam.aaisp.orgw rote in message
        news:VA.0000155 9.27f4605b@nosp am.aaisp.org...
        In article news:<eeSFtncPJ HA.3560@TK2MSFT NGP02.phx.gbl>, Ben Voigt
        [C++ MVP] wrote:
        >A quick look at that doesn't seem to have a zero-price-tag
        >requirement. Can you tell me what statement you are referring to?
        >
        I was referring to the fact that they make Qt available under
        different licences that allow the users to release their products in
        different ways. In particular: if you don't want to release your
        application under the GPL you have to use (and pay for) their
        commercial licence, but if your application is Open Source you can use
        their (free) Open Source licence.
        >
        I don't see an explicit statement that an Open Source Qt application
        must be zero-cost, but it does say
        >
        The Qt Commercial Editions must be used for proprietary,
        commercial development.
        >
        which rules out using the Open Source licence for anything but
        non-commercial software. I have a little difficulty in imagining many
        viable scenarios in which non-commercial software can be anything
        other than zero-cost ... charityware, perhaps?
        Well, in addition to "proprietar y & commercial" and "non-commercial" there's
        also "open source & commercial". Which the GPL permits.
        >
        Cheers,
        Daniel.
        >
        >

          Comment

          • Daniel James
            #48
            Re: porting from C++Builder

            In article news:<B70AF9DC-8DBA-41A5-B0CB-A6E7B89DD40E@mi crosoft.com>,
            Ben Voigt [C++ MVP] wrote:
            ... there's also "open source & commercial". Which the GPL permits.
            The GPL does, but Trolltech seem not to.

            I think we're arguing round in circles here and getting a long way from
            the original point. Probably time to stop.

            Cheers,
            Daniel.



              Comment

              Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
              Working...