Re: is there really no good gui builder

[Mr.SpOOn]

On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Stef Mientki <stef.mientki@g mail.comwrote:

Qt seems to be good, but I don't like their licence.

What's the problem with qt licence?

[Duncan Booth]

Re: is there really no good gui builder

Mr.SpOOn wrote:

On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Stef Mientki <stef.mientki@g mail.comwrote:

>Qt seems to be good, but I don't like their licence.

>
>
What's the problem with qt licence?

"You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Qt Software or from one
of its authorized resellers before you start developing commercial
software. The Commercial license does not allow the incorporation of
code developed with the Open Source Edition of Qt into a commercial
product."

In effect this means that if you want to develop any commercial software
with Qt you have to buy the license in advance (even if all you want is
to knock together some proof-of-concept) and you are also
permanently locked out from including any previously developed Qt code
which the wider community may have produced.

With other GPL licensed software you have the option of approaching
the original author and negotiating with them for their code to be
relicensed for use within your proprietary product (or the author
could simply distribute their code under a less restrictive
license to begin with), but the Qt license restricts you from using
anything publicly available *except for Qt itself*.

It is a novel interpretation of the GPL. Qt Software have every right to
impose this sort of condition, but it makes me want to avoid them.

[Ben Finney]

Re: is there really no good gui builder

Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@i nvalid.invalidw rites:

Mr.SpOOn wrote:

What's the problem with qt licence?

>
"You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Qt Software or from
one of its authorized resellers before you start developing
commercial software. The Commercial license does not allow the
incorporation of code developed with the Open Source Edition of Qt
into a commercial product."

This text is at <URL:http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing>,
for those following along at home.

The above statement is confusing and misleading. There is nothing
about the GPL that prevents commercial software; in fact, selling
software to support development is positively encouraged.

The GPL itself explicitly says this. GPL version 2: “You may charge a
fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your
option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.” GPL version
3: “You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you
convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.”

What that page says could be correct if, instead of falsely claiming
that *commercial* software requires a separate license, it rather said
that if you want to redistribute Qt with *restrictions* on the
recipient additional to those in the GPL, you cannot use the GPL as
the license. They offer a separate license (the confusingly-named
“commercial license”) that permits some additional restrictions on
the recipient of your software.

In effect this means that if you want to develop any commercial
software with Qt you have to buy the license in advance (even if all
you want is to knock together some proof-of-concept) and you are
also permanently locked out from including any previously developed
Qt code which the wider community may have produced.

That is a common misconception, which is not made any better by
misleading text like that found at the above page, and misleading
dichotomies like GPL versus “commercial license”. A careful reader
of the GPL will see that there is explicitly *no* restriction placed
on redistributing the work commercially: any fee may be charged.

With other GPL licensed software you have the option of approaching
the original author and negotiating with them for their code to be
relicensed for use within your proprietary product

This option remains with Qt also, of course, Anyone is free to attempt
such negotiations.

It is a novel interpretation of the GPL. Qt Software have every
right to impose this sort of condition, but it makes me want to
avoid them.

No, they have no such right to interpret the GPL this way; it would be
entirely incompatible with the GPL since it would be an imposition of
additional restrictions, resulting in work that could not legally be
redistributed at all.

In fact, I don't think they are making such an interpretation, though
their poorly-worded web page that you quoted certainly encourages
readers to make such a false interpretation.

--
\ “I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I |
`\ am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I |
_o__) meant.” —Robert J. McCloskey |
Ben Finney

[Duncan Booth]

Re: is there really no good gui builder

Ben Finney wrote:

>It is a novel interpretation of the GPL. Qt Software have every
>right to impose this sort of condition, but it makes me want to
>avoid them.

>
No, they have no such right to interpret the GPL this way; it would be
entirely incompatible with the GPL since it would be an imposition of
additional restrictions, resulting in work that could not legally be
redistributed at all.

Thay aren't claiming that Qt itself is governed by the GPL, what they
are claiming is that the 'Qt Open Source License' permits you to use it
for development of "Open Source software governed by the GNU General
Public License versions 2 and 3". I believe they can make whatever
conditions they like for their own license.

The GPL doesn't actually say you cannot redistribute work which adds
additional restrictions. It says "If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term."

In fact, I don't think they are making such an interpretation, though
their poorly-worded web page that you quoted certainly encourages
readers to make such a false interpretation.

It looks very much to me as though they are trying to make
that interpretation, it is repeated in a variety of forms across the
website. But it doesn't really matter whether they can make it stick or
not, I simply choose to avoid worrying about the issue by choosing
another platform where possible. (Which is a shame really as the small
amount of playing I did with Qt indicates it to be a very nice
platform.)

The license itself says:

"This means that you cannot use a Qt Open Source Edition if your
software must be built with any modules that impose conditions on you
that contradict the conditions of the GNU GPL, including, but not
limited to, software patents, commercial license agreements,
copyrighted interface definitions or any sort of non-disclosure
agreement (NDA). In these circumstances you must use a commercial
edition of Qt."

That I guess taken literally that means you cannot use Qt Open Source
Edition if your software uses Qt Open Source Edition.

[David Boddie]

Re: is there really no good gui builder

On Sunday 09 November 2008 13:45, Ben Finney wrote:

Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@i nvalid.invalidw rites:
>

>Mr.SpOOn wrote:

What's the problem with qt licence?

>>
>"You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Qt Software or from
>one of its authorized resellers before you start developing
>commercial software. The Commercial license does not allow the
>incorporatio n of code developed with the Open Source Edition of Qt
>into a commercial product."

>
This text is at <URL:http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing>,
for those following along at home.
>
The above statement is confusing and misleading. There is nothing
about the GPL that prevents commercial software; in fact, selling
software to support development is positively encouraged.

I agree that it's misleading, but it doesn't say anything about the GPL
preventing commercial software. It's easy to read something into it that
isn't there, though you could argue that it's implied somehow. Ideally,
it would say, "You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Qt Software
or from one of its authorized resellers before you start developing closed
source software for distribution."

[...]

What that page says could be correct if, instead of falsely claiming
that *commercial* software requires a separate license, it rather said
that if you want to redistribute Qt with *restrictions* on the
recipient additional to those in the GPL, you cannot use the GPL as
the license. They offer a separate license (the confusingly-named
?commercial license?) that permits some additional restrictions on
the recipient of your software.

Probably. That page has been a source of controversy for some time.

[...]

>It is a novel interpretation of the GPL. Qt Software have every
>right to impose this sort of condition, but it makes me want to
>avoid them.

>
No, they have no such right to interpret the GPL this way; it would be
entirely incompatible with the GPL since it would be an imposition of
additional restrictions, resulting in work that could not legally be
redistributed at all.

If we're talking about the second sentence, it's not an interpretation of
the GPL. It is a restriction of the commercial license.

In fact, I don't think they are making such an interpretation, though
their poorly-worded web page that you quoted certainly encourages
readers to make such a false interpretation.

Agreed. The compromise in the terms used (commercial vs. proprietary or
closed source) is designed to encourage adoption of commercial licenses
rather than explain the situation, perhaps because there's the fear that
some developers won't pay attention to anything less than a strongly-worded
warning.

David

[Phil Thompson]

Re: is there really no good gui builder

On 9 Nov 2008 14:40:22 GMT, Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@i nvalid.invalid>
wrote:

Ben Finney wrote:
>

>>It is a novel interpretation of the GPL. Qt Software have every
>>right to impose this sort of condition, but it makes me want to
>>avoid them.

>>
>No, they have no such right to interpret the GPL this way; it would be
>entirely incompatible with the GPL since it would be an imposition of
>additional restrictions, resulting in work that could not legally be
>redistribute d at all.

>
Thay aren't claiming that Qt itself is governed by the GPL, what they
are claiming is that the 'Qt Open Source License' permits you to use it
for development of "Open Source software governed by the GNU General
Public License versions 2 and 3". I believe they can make whatever
conditions they like for their own license.

This is just plain wrong. The open source version is licensed under either
v2 or v3 of the GPL - your choice. There is no such thing as a separate "Qt
Open Source License".

The GPL doesn't actually say you cannot redistribute work which adds
additional restrictions. It says "If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term."
>

>In fact, I don't think they are making such an interpretation, though
>their poorly-worded web page that you quoted certainly encourages
>readers to make such a false interpretation.

>
It looks very much to me as though they are trying to make
that interpretation, it is repeated in a variety of forms across the
website. But it doesn't really matter whether they can make it stick or
not, I simply choose to avoid worrying about the issue by choosing
another platform where possible. (Which is a shame really as the small
amount of playing I did with Qt indicates it to be a very nice
platform.)
>
The license itself says:

....you mean the webpage, the license is the standard GPL with all that that
implies...

"This means that you cannot use a Qt Open Source Edition if your
software must be built with any modules that impose conditions on you
that contradict the conditions of the GNU GPL, including, but not
limited to, software patents, commercial license agreements,
copyrighted interface definitions or any sort of non-disclosure
agreement (NDA). In these circumstances you must use a commercial
edition of Qt."
>
That I guess taken literally that means you cannot use Qt Open Source
Edition if your software uses Qt Open Source Edition.

The only "additional " restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial*
license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage
commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their
development phase.

Phil

[Kevin Walzer]

Re: is there really no good gui builder

Phil Thompson wrote:

>
The only "additional " restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial*
license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage
commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their
development phase.
>
>

Is this interpretation of Qt's license correct:

A developer may use the open-source edition of Qt to develop commercial
software with licenseing fees, provided that the developer releases the
product and source code under an open-source license compatible with the
GPL..

This means that if the developer is willing to take the risk of having
all product source code open, with the attendant possibility of a
modified version of the developer's product being freely redistributed
without code enforcing any licensing fees, then the developer may forego
paying commercial license fees to Qt (and Riverbank, if the product is
PyQt) and use the open-source version.

--
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin

http://www.codebykevin.com

[Phil Thompson]

Re: is there really no good gui builder

On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 12:15:42 -0500, Kevin Walzer <kw@codebykevin .com>
wrote:

Phil Thompson wrote:
>

>>
>The only "additional " restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial*
>license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage
>commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their
>development phase.
>>
>>

>
Is this interpretation of Qt's license correct:
>
A developer may use the open-source edition of Qt to develop commercial
software with licenseing fees, provided that the developer releases the
product and source code under an open-source license compatible with the
GPL..
>
This means that if the developer is willing to take the risk of having
all product source code open, with the attendant possibility of a
modified version of the developer's product being freely redistributed
without code enforcing any licensing fees, then the developer may forego
paying commercial license fees to Qt (and Riverbank, if the product is
PyQt) and use the open-source version.

If the above is a correct interpretation of the GPL, then yes.

Phil

[Kevin Walzer]

Re: is there really no good gui builder

Phil Thompson wrote:

>
The only "additional " restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial*
license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage
commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their
development phase.
>
>

Is this interpretation of Qt's license correct:

A developer may use the open-source edition of Qt to develop commercial
software with licenseing fees, provided that the developer releases the
product and source code under an open-source license compatible with the
GPL..

This means that if the developer is willing to take the risk of having
all product source code open, with the attendant possibility of a
modified version of the developer's product being freely redistributed
without code enforcing any licensing fees, then the developer may forego
paying commercial license fees to Qt (and Riverbank, if the product is
PyQt) and use the open-source version.

--
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin

http://www.codebykevin.com

[Terry Reedy]

Re: is there really no good gui builder

Ben Finney wrote:

Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@i nvalid.invalidw rites:

>In effect this means that if you want to develop any commercial
>software with Qt you have to buy the license in advance (even if all
>you want is to knock together some proof-of-concept) and you are
>also permanently locked out from including any previously developed
>Qt code which the wider community may have produced.

>
That is a common misconception,

It looks to me like the plain reading of the Trolltech license. I think
one would be foolish to act on the belief that it does not mean what it
seems to mean. Trolltech must know how people interpret it and has had
years to change it. Since they have not, I presume it says what they mean.

which is not made any better by
misleading text like that found at the above page, and misleading
dichotomies like GPL versus “commercial license”. A careful reader
of the GPL will see that there is explicitly *no* restriction placed
on redistributing the work commercially: any fee may be charged.

The operative license for QT is the QT license, not the GPL.
They want people even thinking about going commercial to buy a
commercial license from the beginning. I am sure that in their
judgment, this gains more that it loses. And I would not be surprised
if they are right.

[Duncan Booth]

Re: is there really no good gui builder

Phil Thompson wrote:

>Thay aren't claiming that Qt itself is governed by the GPL, what they
>are claiming is that the 'Qt Open Source License' permits you to use it
>for development of "Open Source software governed by the GNU General
>Public License versions 2 and 3". I believe they can make whatever
>conditions they like for their own license.

>
This is just plain wrong. The open source version is licensed under either
v2 or v3 of the GPL - your choice. There is no such thing as a separate "Qt
Open Source License".

So are the references to 'Qt Open Source License' on the website
misleading? It seems to me that the claims on the website are very
carefully worded to say that you have to develop code under the GPL (or
other open source license), not that Qt itself is released under the
GPL, and given the additional conditions they impose I would have said
at best it is GPL + lots of other restrictions.

Feel free to disagree, I am not an intellectual property lowyer.

[azrael]

Re: is there really no good gui builder

It would be rally great if wingIDE would have integrated controls for
wxPython.This would be really great.

[David Boddie]

Re: is there really no good gui builder

On Sunday 09 November 2008 20:08, Duncan Booth wrote:

So are the references to 'Qt Open Source License' on the website
misleading?

It depends on whether you assume that there's a separate license by that
name. In practice, it's a placeholder for the licenses it's available under:

"The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open
Source software governed by the GNU General Public License versions 2 and 3
(?GPL?). The Qt Commercial Editions must be used for proprietary,
commercial development."
-- http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing

However, quickly skimming that page, I can see how you could reach the
following conclusion:

It seems to me that the claims on the website are very
carefully worded to say that you have to develop code under the GPL (or
other open source license), not that Qt itself is released under the
GPL, and given the additional conditions they impose I would have said
at best it is GPL + lots of other restrictions.

No, the Qt Open Source Edition is GPL version 2 or version 3 (your choice)
with exceptions (additional permissions) that let you link things to it that
you couldn't if it was pure GPL. It it was GPL + restrictions, it wouldn't
be GPL compatible (you can't add restrictions to the GPL, as I understand
it).

More information can be found here:

http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/gpl.html

David

[Phil Thompson]

Re: is there really no good gui builder

On 9 Nov 2008 19:08:35 GMT, Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@i nvalid.invalid>
wrote:

Phil Thompson wrote:
>

>>Thay aren't claiming that Qt itself is governed by the GPL, what they
>>are claiming is that the 'Qt Open Source License' permits you to use it
>>for development of "Open Source software governed by the GNU General
>>Public License versions 2 and 3". I believe they can make whatever
>>conditions they like for their own license.

>>
>This is just plain wrong. The open source version is licensed under
>either
>v2 or v3 of the GPL - your choice. There is no such thing as a separate
>"Qt
>Open Source License".

>
So are the references to 'Qt Open Source License' on the website
misleading? It seems to me that the claims on the website are very
carefully worded to say that you have to develop code under the GPL (or
other open source license), not that Qt itself is released under the
GPL, and given the additional conditions they impose I would have said
at best it is GPL + lots of other restrictions.
>
Feel free to disagree, I am not an intellectual property lowyer.

Download the source, read the text of the license, it's the GPL.

Phil