Qt 5.2 Final Release Is "Coming Really Soon"

[benalib]

RTFA(greement)! It is clearly stated in the agreement that "Qt" is defined as "Qt for KDE X window system(Wayland excluded) and Android. The subset of "Qt" only licensed for GPL and LGPL is defined as "Qt Free Edition". You failed at understanding the very basic of this agreement. You are as confused as many other KDE users.

you sir wanna be a troll
assuming that there is no such agreement between kde and digia, the code is already GPL for win/linux/mac/andoid. everyone can get the f***ing code and copy/fork/redistribute it
Open source developers are not concerned by that fu**ing commercial version anyway.
the agreement grants kde an extra-exclusive right to relicense Qt under the BSD
if Digia drops GPL'ed Qt, the code is here and the community can continue developing it for all platforms.

[jrch2k8]

Digia is not forced to provide all patches for Qt Free Edition. so his is clearly wrong. And you didn't answer the question. Are you afraid of the truth?

yes they are as long it belongs to the core QT code with natural exceptions like platform QPA plugins like vxworks[qt charts/etc is not part of core Qt], yes i did, im afraid you are really just plainly trolling!! not afraid of your troll paranoic delusions, unlike you my company actually uses Qt commertial and GPL and my intelectual property lawyer firm checked out the entire agreements to be sure/GPL corner cases, etc.[including symbols hashing], so im 100% sure every line of code in qt-project.org git tree is totally protected by GPL/agreement pretty much forever.

[jrch2k8]

you sir wanna be a troll
assuming that there is no such agreement between kde and digia, the code is already GPL for win/linux/mac/andoid. everyone can get the f***ing code and copy/fork/redistribute it
Open source developers are not concerned by that fu**ing commercial version anyway.
the agreement grants kde an extra-exclusive right to relicense Qt under the BSD
if Digia drops GPL'ed Qt, the code is here and the community can continue developing it for all platforms.

the agreement grants kde an extra-exclusive right to relicense Qt under the BSD

not current Qt releases since those are already GPL for all relevant platforms, only those i mentioned before[just fixing]

[anda_skoa]

The context of the blog post is details about the Free Qt Agreement and software Freedom.

The context of the blog is Qt on Android and, indeed, that it is Free Software and is ensure to remain that way.

How can it not be LYING when it is "inaccurate" about the fact that the agreement only covers Free Qt on a few platforms

It is not inaccurate. Qt on Android is one of those platforms, no?

and the very first victim of a relicense KILLs the copyleft of Free Qt???

Hmm, are you sure? My understanding of Free Software licenses, especially GPL and LGPL, is that they cannot be be revoked.
I.e. that code released and distributed under GPL and LGPL remains distributable under those terms indefinitely? Has the FSF changed the licensing terms recently?

Cheers,
_

[benalib]

the agreement grants kde an extra-exclusive right to relicense Qt under the BSD

not current Qt releases since those are already GPL for all relevant platforms, only those i mentioned before[just fixing]

no sir
KDE does have the right to relicense current Qt releases under BSD ( which can ruin Digia commercial model) or any open source license if Digia fails to fulfill its legal obligations under the agreement. Currentely, KDE and everyone else have the right to redistribute it under the GPL/LGPL

[anda_skoa]

Qt is under LGPL/GPL for windows mac linux and android and everyone is permitted to use modify redistribute it under the LGPL/GPL

This is correct as far as I can tell. Code under those licenses remains available under those license terms indefinitely.

but KDE has the exclusive right to relicense the whole Qt framework for (win/linux/mac/andoid) under the BSD or any other open source license if digia fails to fulfill its obligations

My understanding is that the relicensing option does not apply to code specific for Windows, Mac or QNX. E.g. the platform plugins for those platforms, potentially widget style plugins and "extra" modules specific to those platforms are unaffected by any such relicensing and remain under their current triple license. Most likely also applies to files ending in _win.cpp _mac.cpp and similar.

The main corpus of Qt seems to be platform independent though, so it would fall into the category of being used on Linux.

Cheers,
_

[jrch2k8]

Still not all commercial Qt code is in that git tree. Only you assume this. And that is wrong. No one states public GPL code can be delicensed.

sure digia can have qt7 experimental ideas in company or stuff like that, but releases of core Qt are in fact identical beyond backports and licenses and KDE track this, ofc so far only happened once at Qt-5.0.0 release[is in the mailing list] and was resolved in 5.0.1 in conjunction of all parties

[jrch2k8]

So why do you state that any commit for commercial Qt have to go to Qt Free Edition? That is simply WRONG.

ask a developer what means "commit" to a repo and you will get it

[anda_skoa]

The blog states Qt is protected, which is a lie. The agreement only Qt Free Editon aka the LGPL/GPLed version for a few platforms. Is that really so difficult to understand?

I don't think it is a misunderstanding, but rather a different interpretation.
Given that the blog's topic was Qt on Android and Qt on Android being part of the Qt Free Edition, it is accurate to say Qt is protected by the KDE Free Qt Foundation contract.
The blog is even uses the sentence "Qt on Android is now protected by the KDE Free Qt Foundation agreement." explicitly.

I didn't write the GPL would be revoked only that the copyleft would go away.

True, you wrote "kills copyleft". My interpretation was that this meant revocation of the GPL and LGPL license terms.

That happens the minute KDE relicenses Qt Free Edition to BSD. Then Free Qt would be GPL+LGPL+BSD, that triple license is not copyleft anymore.

Hmm, probably different definitions of copyleft at work then. As far as I know a very common definition of copyleft is to have GPL and/or LGPL licensing terms. I.e. having the freedom to use, study, change and distribute. That would still apply here.
I think the term copyleft was coined by the Free Software Foundation and/or Richard Stallman himself. As far as I know they consider all software licensed under GPL and LGPL terms to be Free Software and Copyleft.

There might be other interpretations by different organistations and individuals though of which I am not aware of.
Unfortunately googling that term isn't helping there either.

Cheers,
_

[jrch2k8]

Then the wording is changed. But still wrong. It does NOT cover Qt for Android, only Qt Free Edition for Android.


Then you need to be more careful when reading about this topic. But I can't really blame you. This is difficult and Digia+ KDE does nothing to help people understand the true impact of this deal. I wonder why..



Let me help you. "Copyleft is a general method for making a program (or other work) free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well."

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/

Having KDE relicense Qt Free Editon to GPL+LGPL+BSD does kill the copyleft. KDE can NOT touch Qt, they can only drop an anticopyleft cluster bomb on Qt Free Editions users. Get it?

im going to use my lawyer words here:
1) "agreement are not excluyant but complementary"
2) "agreement dont invalidate laws"
3) "judges/lawyers don't like ovbious things wasting their time, as your literature teacher don't like you specify that every letter it is in a fact a letter"

aka
1.)every agreement compliment each other and are interpreted based on their precedence of the actual and previous facts
2.)GPL don't have to be included in the agreement because GPL has procedence over the agreement, so the agreement itself can't violate the GPL
3.)all other laws applicable have procedence over the agreement, so is redundant put them on the agreement

all this means, you cannot take literally every word on the agreement if you don't understand the related legal/licenses/jurisdictions/etc in between, that is why ppl study laws.

so to your post means,

1.) neither party can touch the already GPLed code because GPL license + other laws protect that code with more priority that the agreement and since the agreement can't breake the law, it has no procedence in this point. the only possible procedence is for code that don't contain a license or have an exception clausule compatible with the agreement in such license/term of use

and well the rest i wrote it enough times already, beside the actual agreements[from 1998 to 2013 all are valid and complementary] are freaking long[the pdf ones] and have many conditionals/clausules/exception/specifications that my lawyer explained me once and after consult my country and relevant countries jurisdictions told me was very well done.

so i would recommend you that instead of picking the same fucking line of all those huge legal documents to troll every time, go and find a proper lawyer that can mitigate your doubts more deeply for your and relevant jurisdictions, so you can properly informed make your suggestion to kde/fsf foundations legal teams to improve those conditions if necesary