Trolltech Is No More, Hello Qt Software

[BlackStar]

Frankly, if you're developing commercial closed apps then you should pay to use the toolkit, also, if you're using Qt internally (not planning to sell the app) then you're not required to pay as you're not distributing code.

What if you are developing an open and free app that you want to release under a BSD-style license? Not possible under the GPL; possible under the LGPL. Hubick's point is quite valid.

[deanjo]

Then you use another toolkit simple as that. You can't have every scenario covered under every mixture of license. I would love to have zfs support in the kernel but it ain't gonna happen. However there are exceptions to the QT licenses.

Nokia Corporation Qt GPL Exception Version 1.3

Additional rights granted beyond the GPL (the "Exception").

As a special exception to the terms and conditions of GPL version 2.0 or GPL version 3.0, Nokia Corporation hereby grants you the rights described below, provided you agree to the terms and conditions in this Exception, including its obligations and restrictions on use.

Nothing in this Exception gives you or anyone else the right to change the licensing terms of the Qt Open Source Edition.

Below, "Licensed Software" shall refer to the software licensed under the GPL version 2.0 or GPL version 3.0 and this exception.

1) The right to use open source licenses not compatible with the GNU General Public License version 2.0 or GNU General Public License version 3.0: You may link software (hereafter referred to as "Your Software") against the Licensed Software and/or distribute binaries of Your Software linked against the Licensed Software, provided that:

A) Your Software is licensed under one of the following licenses:

License name Version(s)/Copyright Date
Academic Free License 2.0, 2.1, 3.0
Apache Software License 1.0 or 1.1
Apache License 2.0
Apple Public Source License 2.0
Artistic license (as set forth in the addendum file)
BSD license "July 22 1999"
Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) 1.0
Common Public License 1.0
Eclipse Public License 1.0
GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL) 2.0, 2.1, 3.0
Jabber Open Source License 1.0
MIT License (as set forth in the addendum file)
Mozilla Public License (MPL) 1.0 or 1.1
Open Software License 2.0, 3.0
OpenSSL license (with original SSLeay license) "2003" ("1998")
PHP License 3.0
Python license (CNRI Python License) (as set forth in the addendum file)
Python Software Foundation License 2.1.1
Q Public License 1.0
Sleepycat License "1999"
W3C License "2001"
X11 License X11R6.6
Zlib/libpng License (as set forth in the addendum file)
Zope Public License 2.0, 2.1

(Licenses without a specific version number or date are reproduced in the file GPL_Exception_Addendum.txt in your source package).

and

B) You must, on request, make a complete package including the complete source code of Your Software (as defined in the GNU General Public License version 2, section 3, but excluding anything excluded by the special exception in the same section) available to Nokia Corporation under the same license as that granted to other recipients of the source code of Your Software.

and

C) Your or any other contributor's rights to:

i) distribute the source code of Your Software to anyone for any purpose;

and

ii) publicly discuss the development project for Your Software and its goals in any form and in any forum are not prohibited by any legal instrument, including but not limited to contracts, non-disclosure agreements, and employee contracts.

2) The right to link non-open source applications with pre-installed versions of the Licensed Software: You may link applications with binary pre-installed versions of the Licensed Software, provided that such applications have been developed and are deployed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Qt Commercial License Agreement.

http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license-gpl-exceptions.html

[_txf_]

What if you are developing an open and free app that you want to release under a BSD-style license? Not possible under the GPL; possible under the LGPL. Hubick's point is quite valid.

It is unfortunate, and any license not matter what will have its pros and cons. Ultimately I think the way TT has done it is the most pragmatic way to be fair to themselves and to us (the free software community).

Whilst Hubrick's point is valid, his example was closed source which implies he wasn't thinking about BSD either.

edit: looking at Deanjo's comment, it appears you can indeed link bsd licensed code against Qt.

[RealNC]

If you can take BSD code and make it closed source (Apple does this) why can't you take it and make it GPL?

[deanjo]

If you can take BSD code and make it closed source (Apple does this) why can't you take it and make it GPL?

The BSD derived code is still opensource and freely downloadable from Apple's developer site. Proprietary IP that was created internally and not derived from existing opsensource code can be opensourced or kept closed.