|  | | Re: Qt-Prop.org
Jan 15 2011 on content QBall |
Source code is now available under the GPL (because someone asked for it, not because it's required by using Qt, as someone wrongly asserts above...:).
Incidentally, forgive me if I missed something obvious, but when going through the submission process I saw nothing stating the requirement for open source ("Free" can be free as in speech, or free as in beer, so is ambigious). On top of that, there's no clear link to http://qt-prop.org that I can see, so I was unaware of its existence.
Also, I wonder why it's possible to select non-Free licenses (even if Creative Commons are meant for things like graphics/sound, the Non Commercial licences are *not* considered Free or compatible with Open Source, either by the FSF or the OSI, AFAIK). So this made me think even more that it was okay.
3electrons notes that it's common to see people being asked to move applications, so presumable I'm not the only one who was unaware of this :) I wonder if the submission guidelines can be fixed or made more clear, and the list of available licences corrected? Thanks.
|
| | | Is now GPL
Jan 7 2011 on content QBall |
Source code is now available (because someone asked for it, not because it's required by using Qt, as someone wrongly asserts above...:).
I'll move my other non-open source app in a moment.
Incidentally, forgive me if I missed something obvious, but when going through the submission process I saw nothing stating the requirement for open source ("Free" can be free as in speech, or free as in beer, so is ambigious).
Also, I wonder why it's possible to select non-Free licenses (even if Creative Commons are meant for things like graphics/sound, the Non Commercial licences are *not* considered Free or compatible with Open Source, either by the FSF or the OSI, AFAIK). So this made me think even more that it was okay.
3electrons notes that it's common to see people being asked to move applications, so presumable I'm not the only one who was unaware of this :) I wonder if the submission guidelines can be fixed or made more clear, and the list of available licences corrected? Thanks. |
| | | Re: Re: Licenses mismatch
Aug 15 2010 on content QBall |
That's the GPL *not* the LGPL. They are different licences. Qt is released under the LGPL, and has the crucical distinction that proprietary/closed source distribution is allowed with dynamic linking. Please read my reply above.
Also, from your own link http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html :
"In the middle are the “weakly protective” (“weak copyleft”) licenses, a compromise between permissive and strongly protective licenses. These prevent the software component (often a software library) from becoming proprietary, yet permit it to be part of a larger proprietary program. ... The GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) is the most popular weakly protective license, and has a version 2.1 (LGPLv2.1) and 3 (LGPLv3)."
(On the more general topic of using non-CC licences, are there licences suitable for closed source freeware apps? It seems that most freeware users seem to either write their own or simply say "freeware", but I think both of these are bad - it's better to use a known licence, that's been written by lawyers. And I don't think I'm the only one to think of CC for software - e.g., http://stackoverflow.com/questions/978477/closed-source-non-commercial-license. But when GNU say CC isn't good for software, they're only talking in the context of it not being Free Software - which isn't a problem here, since I'm not claiming these apps to be Free Software, nor do I have to according to the LGPL.) |
| | | Re: Missing Source
Aug 14 2010 on content QBall |
Qt is also licensed under the LGPL:
http://qt.nokia.com/downloads
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html
which, as explained, allows proprietary applications.
The files for Windows and Symbian are certainly dynamically linked. My Linux-knowledge is limited (I just compiled with QtCreator's default settings), but from what I can tell (checking with ldd, and also testing with my system Qt libraries deleted), it's dynamically linked also.
If you want the source, I can make it available. However, to the best of my knowledge this is not a LGPL violation to release Qt closed source applications. |
| |
Search people
Current visitors
New users
Birthdays
Most active users
Back
|
|
| |
|
