Copyright and licensing laws are very important for the legal business to make sure documented economy.
Digia has four times as many employed as canonical.
Originally Posted by cardboard
People still use that? LOL
I have been using Debian Stable for years and love it!!
Since you have called them trolls prove they are mistaken. If someone deserves the first price of NIH syndrome it's a gnome team. The second one goes to Canonical.
Originally Posted by brosis
"Qt: Digia CLA. Provides the ability to close up apps, use DRM and make alterations compared to any free software versions."
Care to explain more in detail ?
Also, I don't know in other countries but in France, the final word is on the one who wrote the code, and he can set the license to whatever he wants even if the company is against (even in case of copyleft the writer retains full intelectual property).
The agreement is quite full of holes; if Digia wanted, they could cause much trouble.
Originally Posted by doom_Oo7
You of course own the copyright for your patches, and are free to publish them any way you like. What Digia can do however, is to incorporate your patches only in a proprietary Qt version, never shipping them in the free Qt. This effectively turns your work proprietary, as nobody will see it in the official Qt, and whatever further modifications Digia does to the proprietary version, in your code, you will never see.
I don't understand how is this possible.
Originally Posted by curaga
It is stated in the contributor agreement :
"Third Party Contributions may
only be accepted for use in Qt Software or by the Qt Project if the following criteria are met:
(a) The Third Party Contribution is licensed under license terms that are compatible with the GNU
Lesser General Public License version 2.1 (“LGPL v. 2.1”) as included on the Free Software
Foundation’s website (www.gnu.org); and
If it's licensed under LGPL, it can't be "proprietary-zed", right ?
It's LGPL + CLA. So while the patch itself stays LGPL, Digia has the right to do whatever they want with it, under any license they want. That's the point of the CLA.
Perhaps they could do that, but they would certainly be challenged, because it would seem to violate one of the sections (which demands a "corresponding" Free version for any non-free Linux-based release). In the case of a dispute, the KDE guys decide.
Originally Posted by curaga
Perhaps the wording could be more exact, but a lot of this is just typical FUD. Qt has been an integral part of the Free Software ecosystem for almost 20 years now, and it's been FSF-approved Free Software for 15. As a project, they have relased more GPL code to the community than almost any other project in existence (of course, there are notable exception). If ANYONE has played nicely with the community, it's been Qt developers. They (as Trolltech, Nokia, or Digia) have never even hinted at doing anything that they are accused of.
I'm at a loss at how someone can happily use LLVM, CUPS, X.org or Apache, but have a problem with Qt. It's just political backstabbing, de Icaza style.