Originally posted by Honton
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Qt 5.2 Final Release Is "Coming Really Soon"
Collapse
X
-
-
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).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by curaga View PostFirst 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.
Originally posted by curaga View PostMany 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.
Originally posted by curaga View Postbut 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostWhat you are worried is that Digia would make secret patches which are not GPL, and then combine them with Qt and sell that. This is exactly what the agreement prevents -- it is called selling a commercial version without a corresponding Free version. If they do this, the following automatically happens:
1) Whatever is in the repository gets released under a BSD
2) Digia goes out of business overnight because their 3 secret patches are worthless compared to all of Qt
3) Commercial Qt dies overnight because nobody would pay for it
4) Some commercial entities build their software using the BSD version
5) The community releases all further changes as GPL/LGPL only
6) The BSD version also dies because nobody is working on it
I quite disagree with the conclusions too. Digia has many other businesses, so they would not die for that. 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.
Honton keeps being overboard, 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Honton View PostThen the wording is changed. But still wrong. It does NOT cover Qt for Android, only Qt Free Edition for Android.
Originally posted by Honton View PostLet 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."
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?
BSD might also not be the chosen option, could be anything, e.g. LGPL or LGPL with linking expections.
Cheers,
_
Leave a comment:
-
Honton. I already pointed you to the old discussion on this topic, especially to the part where I quote an email written by an "official" person. Look at the first page of this thread. There I also asked you a question, please give me an answer.
Leave a comment:
-
So by Honton's standards, Linus Torvalds is an enemy of free software.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Honton View PostThen the wording is changed. But still wrong. It does NOT cover Qt for Android, only Qt Free Edition for Android.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostThey are the same thing, funky. Exact same software, with exact same documentation, built from the exact same repository. Which is managed by the community. Everything that goes into that repository is automatically GPL, only Digia has the right to relicense it for money.
...
It says everything and closes the debate (at least I hope).
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: