Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 65

Thread: Qt 5.2 Final Release Is "Coming Really Soon"

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    First of all, wasn't there a timeframe of one year (or three months if KDE board decides to act)? This means Digia can delay the corresponding free version by 3-12mo, depending on the KDE board, without any repercussions.
    They have to release the free version within 12 months of the non-free version and they have to release the free version within 12 months of the last free version. So they could release the non-free edition earlier (although it would probably take several years to get them 12 months out of sync without violating the free-every-12-months rule). I don't see how that would be a major disaster, however.

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Many Qt buyers are also not doing so because they're forced (many of them could in fact use the LGPL version), they do it to have corporate support and a party to blame. This cash flow would not change over a BSD'd Qt.
    There are a number of other companies offering paid support for Qt besides Digia. The only advantage Digia has over them is licensing. With the BSD license, Digia would have to compete on an even playing field with those companies.

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    but the defenders haven't fully read the agreement either, or perhaps they don't have enough imagination for how evil could be done and still be within the agreement.
    Shouldn't you should know what is in the agreement yourself before criticizing others for not knowing it? You didn't even know what the timing restrictions were.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,299

    Default

    Let's imagine the worst-case scenario: what is the worst Digia could do while still following the agreement?

    1. They could keep their own in-house Qt patches to themselves for 12 months. Patches by third parties would still be available immediately.
    2. They could stop publishing their own in-house patches for the Windows, Mac Os X, and iOs Qt backends indefinitely. The backends would still be available since they are LGPL, and third-party patches to the backends would still be available immediately.

    Now, what would happen if Digia violated the agreement?

    1. Pretty much all of Qt, including documentation, would become BSD-licensed. Digia would lose most of its advantage over other companies offering Qt support.
    2. The Windows, Mac Os X, and iOs Qt backends, which are a pretty small part of Qt, would remain LGPL. If there is enough demand, others would probably offer BSD-licensed backend implementations (again, since this is a fairly small part of Qt).

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    You didn't even know what the timing restrictions were.
    Um, I have the pdf right here. Perhaps you misread me.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honton View Post
    So your point is KDE and Digia makes "Free software" so difficult that you need a lawyer? That is quite the opposite of transparent and Free. So much for freedom, I guess KDE doesn't care because they could just terminate the agreement. And just to make a few things clear. Your lawyers advice adds nothing new. no one is talking about procedence vs law or revoking GPL. It is simply a matter of the definition of Qt and Qt Free Edition. It is written in plain English. Go look it up and answer me; Does a relicense cover Qt or Qt Free Editon?
    Death to the suppressor, our liberator!! All hail the savior of the island of yesterday!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •