richard.j.dale@gmail.com
3/3/2008 5:20:00 PM
On Mar 3, 4:24 pm, Gregory Seidman <gsslist+r...@anthropohedron.net>
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 01:10:00AM +0900, richard.j.d...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 3:10 pm, Gregory Seidman <gsslist+r...@anthropohedron.net>
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 10:59:54PM +0900, richard.j.d...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > > The QtRuby code is copyrighted by a small number of people, and it
> > > > would certainly be possible to add another license type, such as
> > > > commercial, bsd or mit. If you really do think you need a commercial
> > > > license please email me to discuss. Note that it wouldn't be possible
> > > > to release QtRuby under an LGPL license though.
>
> > > It seems like LGPL would be ideal in this instance. I believe that's
> > > what KDE uses, for exactly the same reasons. Why wouldn't it be
> > > possible for QtRuby?
>
> > Because I would need permission from Trolltech and my understanding is
> > that they don't like an LGPL license used with language bindings,
> > although they are happy that the KDE libs are LGPL'd.
>
> I am confused. Why would you need Trolltech's permission for this?
> Developing an LGPL library against a GPL library is one of the (implicit)
> freedoms granted by the GPL. In fact, unless you and other contributors had
> a Qt developer license the entire time you and they were developing QtRuby,
> I don't believe you would be able to provide QtRuby under any license that
> was not GPL-compatible. Basically, if you didn't have the right (by having
> purchased a developer license from Qt) to develop closed code while you
> were doing it, you don't have the right to close the code.
>
> > A few years ago, when I asked them about changing the QtJava license
> > from GPL to LGPL, they were very much against the idea. They were much
> > happier with a QtJava dual license GPL/commercial to match the
> > licensing scheme of Qt itself.
>
> [...]
>
> I find that bizarre, but I'm still not clear on why they have any say in
> the matter.
>
> > Their view may have changed now, and I haven't discussed it with
> > anyone from Trolltech for a while. Now that Qt is getting better and
> > better, and Ruby is beginning to really get some great runtimes, I
> > think it makes sense to start thinking of some sort of commercial
> > QtRuby version.
>
> I still say their view is irrelevant. Legally, I don't believe you can
> release QtRuby under any license that isn't GPL-compatible at this point.
> IANAL, but that's what my reading of Qt's commercial license seems to
> imply.
Well I'm relaying to you what Trolltech's view was last time I spoke
to them about licensing. There is no way I would ignore their views on
something like this, and it is quite wrong to describe their view as
'irrelevant'. Free Software developers are partners of Trolltech, in
the same way that commercial licensees are, although they have
different rights and obligations - we're all part of the same eco-
system.
-- Richard