Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Trolltech Adopts GPL 3 for Qt

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the for-making-cute-software dept.

Graphics 240

Funkmaster F writes "At the KDE Developer Conference today, Trolltech CEO Havaard Nord announced that its Qt application development toolkit will be released under GPL 3. 'Here at the KDE release event, Nord's announcement was met with applause. Like Trolltech's initial decision to move from its own QPL license to the GPL, this announcement and the company's more recent decision to adopt the GPL for all platforms rather than just Linux, demonstrate the company's ongoing commitment to openness.'"

cancel ×

240 comments

Gnome (2, Insightful)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22104848)

So the complaint that KDE is not as "open" as Gnome is no longer valid?

Re:Gnome (2, Informative)

AJWM (19027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22104892)

I don't think that complaint has been valid in the last ten years, or whenever it was that Trolltech released the Qt library under GPL 2.

Arguably Gnome is the less open desktop, since GTK is licensed under the lesser GPL.

Re:Gnome (4, Informative)

philipp-de (1154309) | more than 6 years ago | (#22104918)

Actually, the LGPL gives you somewhat more "freedom" than the GPL does. LGPL allows you to integrate code into commercial products, without putting your "derivative" application under the LGPL too. The GPL requires this.

Re:Gnome (5, Insightful)

AJWM (19027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105086)

It gives the developer using the library more freedom, not everyone else. Hence the FSF's name change of the LGPL from "Library GPL" to "Lesser GPL".

Of course it's the same argument that BSD license proponents put forth. It boils down to who you're talking about, the developer or the downstream users (who may also be developers). As a user, I prefer the GPL. As a developer, I only care if I want to release a closed-source application. (And I'll take a BSD or LGPL'd library over a closed-source proprietary one so that I retain control over my own software; it sucks when your library vendor changes things, or it doesn't work quite as documented.)

Re:Gnome (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105500)

As a developer, I only care if I want to release a closed-source application.

You've hit the nail on the head.

In case of libraries, LGPL >> GPL. Why? Because commercial applications won't use GPL libraries. Period. Just imagine if gaming libraries were GPL. Nobody would use them. Oh, look, almost nobody uses them anyway! Most PC games require DirectX.

It's basic economics. If software makers have to choose between a magnificent GPL'ed library and a crappy library that they can use without being forced to release their code, guess which one they'll choose? The losers are going to be the end users. So much for freedom.

And don't get me started with MySQL...

Re:Gnome (2, Insightful)

Antiocheian (859870) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105850)

The main point of the GPL is inheritance of freedom and not software quality.

commercial applications won't use GPL libraries [...] between a magnificent GPL'ed library and a crappy library


Which means GPL'ed applications will be more competitive for they will use the magnificent library instead.

Sort of (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105582)

As a user, I want a wide variety of software on the platforms I use. Pure GPL platforms preclude almost all commercial development, and BSD platforms don't stay free (hello, OS X).

A balanced approach with LGPL libraries and GPL platforms allows the best of both worlds.

GPL can be anti-freedom too (1, Troll)

plierhead (570797) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105624)

You may, but most users could care less what license their new shiny thing uses, as long as its free. They just use it.

GPL can totally be used against the causes of freedom.

I build a shiny widget, and release it under the GPL. Lots of people use my shiny widget - it becomes the gold standard for shiny widgets. Then some software house cuts a huge deal for software development with [insert name of immense multinational here]. The only trouble is, they need a shiny widget as part of the code. And damn, your one is the standard.

They come to you, and boy, you have them over a barrel. Because you were cunning enough to use the GPL, you can hold them to ransom, and charge them $1M for a limited license that lets them use your shiny widget in their new project. And whats more, you can sell it all over again the next time someone needs your shiny widget in a non-GPL setting.

If you had released your code under BSD this scenario can't happen.

The proponents of GPL sing a great song about freedom - but more than a few of them are fully aware of just how much control the GPL reserves for them, and they love it.

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too (5, Insightful)

chromatic (9471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105684)

Because you were cunning enough to use the GPL, you can hold them to ransom, and charge them $1M for a limited license that lets them use your shiny widget in their new project. And whats more, you can sell it all over again the next time someone needs your shiny widget in a non-GPL setting.

My goodness, it's almost as if you had some way to make companies who don't want to participate in the development of free software participate by funding it! That's so... evil?

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too (5, Insightful)

Sam Douglas (1106539) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105700)

more than a few of them are fully aware of just how much control copyright reserves for them, and they love it.
It is not limited to the GPL.

Re:GPL can be anti-freedom too (4, Insightful)

debatem1 (1087307) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105862)

This is supposed to be a bad thing, I take it? As I see it, the alternative for the software house would have been to just release their code. Open source, or pay up and fund future open source development. Seems like a pretty big win-win for the community to me.

Re:Gnome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22105368)

First of all, there is no way you can associate "commercial product" with "non free software".
and, by allowing people to write "non free software" over free software libraries, is not in any
way giving more freedom. not to who writes the library, neither (of course) to who will use it.

No! (2, Informative)

Rix (54095) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105560)

The LGPL allows you to *link* code into commercial products. You still have to release the LGPL'd code, and anything you've added to it.

Re:Gnome (3, Insightful)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22106080)

Actually, the LGPL gives you somewhat more "freedom" than the GPL does. LGPL allows you to integrate code into commercial products, without putting your "derivative" application under the LGPL too.
It isn't just for commercial products. For example, until this latest development you couldn't write Qt apps that were GPL3, and KDE was having problems with using GPL3 code. The same problem will occur if you want to write using any FOSS license that isn't compatible with Trolltech's licensing for Qt.

The LGPL lets you use the platform to write whatever you want: free software under any license, proprietary software, etc. etc. Qt being under the control of Trolltech means that they decide what licenses you can use, free or otherwise. Now, Trolltech has been going in the direction of openness recently, and this announcement is more proof of that, but its product is still not as flexible as GTK, or the Linux kernel for that matter - you can write apps to run on Linux that use any license, just like GTK, and unlike Qt. I've posted it before, I'll post it again - would Linux be as successful today if it were licensed like Qt is, i.e., that you need to pay if you aren't GPLed (or on a shortlist of other FOSS licenses)?

Re:Gnome (1)

rustalot42684 (1055008) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105208)

Your argument is invalid. See http://doc.trolltech.com/4.3/license-gpl-exceptions.html [trolltech.com] .

Academic Free License 2.0, 2.1, 3.0 Apache Software License 1.0 or 1.1 Apache License 2.0 Apple Public Source License 2.0 Artistic license From Perl 5.8.0 BSD license "July 22 1999" Common Public License 1.0 Eclipse Public License 1.0 GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL) 2.0 or 2.1 Jabber Open Source License 1.0 MIT License (as set forth in the addendum file) Mozilla Public License (MPL) 1.0 or 1.1 Open Software License 2.0, 3.0 OpenSSL license (with original SSLeay license) "2003" ("1998") PHP License 3.0 Python license (CNRI Python License) (as set forth in the addendum file) Python Software Foundation License 2.1.1 Q Public License v1.0 Sleepycat License "1999" W3C License "2001" X11 License X11R6.6 Zlib/libpng License (as set forth in the addendum file) Zope Public License 2.0, 2.1

Re:Gnome (2, Insightful)

gambolt (1146363) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105252)

Not to mention the mono cancer.

Re:Gnome (2, Funny)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105524)

I think of it as mononucleosis.

Just give it 2 weeks and it'll clear up with the appropriate drugs.

Re:Gnome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22105026)

The question is not "Is it as open as GNOME?"; they've been more or less the same amount of "Open" for years and years now.

The question is "Is it as Free as GNOME?" And the answer to that question is very complex. It's more free in terms of the user, as now anywhere that Qt is installed (under the GPLv3), you can install your own version at a later date. However, this will probably force people to seek out more commercial licenses and is probably the entire reason for the move.

GNOME/GTK+/GLib is more free in terms of the developer; commercial developers don't have to seek out any special licensing requirements if they just want to link to GNOME/GTK+/GLib, as is the case of many commercial applications simply seeking a graphical toolkit. It's less free in that the users may or may not have access to replace it on certain platforms.

Re:Gnome (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105090)

end users still have access to the source code for the LGPL parts and any modifications to the LGPL parts must be made available.

Re:Gnome (2, Insightful)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105100)

Well, QT has been using GPL2 for quite a while now. However the big point of concern with some people is that QT does not use LGPL which would allow GPL incompatible licences to interoperate with the libraries like GTK does. Of course there is the argument, such as that that made by the FSF that ALL libraries should be GPL in order to encourage GPL compatible software to have an advantage, but in my mind having a platform open to crazy licences and/or closed software is more important and the fact that Trolltech provides a commercial licence to circumvent these restrictions indicates that they probably agree with me.

I don't believe that BSD licensed software is freer than GPL, however I do believe that the dynamic linking process provides a good boundary between licences for interoperability as per the LGPL. Trolltech who dissolve this boundary for profit and the FSF who dissolve this boundary to push their ideological agendas are not working in the spirit of openness. Switching libraries to GPL3 from GPL2 and especially LGPL will do nothing but further restrict what the program on the other side can be doing will do a lot for ideological and commercial leveraging at the expense of that library as a universal platform.

Re:Gnome (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22105474)

Keep this in mind. The KDE project REFUSES to have any other GPLed library (as opposed to LGPL) as part of the official KDE desktop. Why?

If you are a commercial closed software company, you have to pay money to Trolltech to have your software based on KDE. Far from being a Free software cheerleader for GPL purity, the KDE project is a system for funneling money into Trolltech via license fees. This is why they refuse to have any other GPL libraries... only Trolltech.

Re:Gnome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22106426)

To boot, if a business is using TT libs for some embedded component, the people who buy the embedded component can demand all specs, materials, and every single trade secret, thanks to the GPL 3.

This is why businesses are being told by their attorneys to drop all Linux support, and pay the $3 per product that Windows CE requires. Then, trade secrets (which may be under contract) are not at risk. Also, thanks to SOX, using knowingly using GPL 3 code (with the fact that anyone who you distribute the code to can demand all trade secrets) is a breach of due diligence and can mean prison time, as well as lots of shareholder lawsuits.

Unfortunately, it's not (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105546)

KDE is unfortunately out of reach for most commercial developers. Trolltech has taken their pricing off their website, but IIRC it was over $1000 per year, per developer, per platform. It's a nice library, but it's not *that* nice.

Gnome uses the LGPL where appropriate to allow commercial development on it's platform.

Re:Unfortunately, it's not (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105608)

Is there still the 'trapping' clause where if you develop something using the GPL'd version of Qt, it's impossible for you to later buy a QT developer's license and do something closed and commercial with the code you've already written? (whether or not you ever released it) That clause ends up 'trapping' people who code something and never release it to anybody, but then later elect to make it something commercial. I imagine (not knowing of cases directly) that it's kept more than one person/organization from buying that $1K per year developer seat after doing some playing around/coding with the free suite.

Re:Unfortunately, it's not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22105940)

$1000 per year per developer per platform isn't that much money in the commercial world, except maybe for very small companies. Typically most of the codebase will be developed on one platform, and the other platforms are built by a script that pulls the code out of source control and runs the build. That script will need a license, though. Then a few people will have two licenses (main platform + others) to debug.

If you have 100 developers, each with a commercial license, that's $100000 a year, which (in most places) won't even pay two more developers.

Yes it is (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 6 years ago | (#22106392)

Adobe Flex was $500 (last I looked, $250), the mid range Visual Studio is about $500, and significantly less for volume licenses. Both come with fairly high class IDE's as well.

QT is a fringe library, even on its primary platform, doesn't include an IDE worth using, costs significantly more, and has onerous licensing terms. No one else makes you register your developers.

The end result is that it's nigh impossible to use QT in a commercial setting. How are you going to explain all these ludicrous restrictions to your boss?

Its good to see more companies going OSS (1)

kcbanner (929309) | more than 6 years ago | (#22104856)

They are realizing that they can actually make more money this way, plus they get free bugfixes and user support as well. It's a win-win :)

Re:Its good to see more companies going OSS (1)

shadylookin (1209874) | more than 6 years ago | (#22104902)

They were Open source to begin with(with the exception of their windows port) they just went to GPLv3. They probably opened the windows source because they knew someone would probalby just fork off and port the gpled linux code over to windows anyway.

Re:Its good to see more companies going OSS (1)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22106266)

They were Open source to begin with(with the exception of their windows port) they just went to GPLv3. They probably opened the windows source because they knew someone would probalby just fork off and port the gpled linux code over to windows anyway.

The windows port has also been GPL since 4.0, so that part is old news. The only change seems to be upgrading (;)) from v2 to v3.

Re:Its good to see more companies going OSS (1)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22106294)

It's too early it appears. GPLv3 was simply added as an additional license. So GPLv2 still applies, if you wish,

When will NIGGERTECH adopt it? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22104872)

GPL2 is for whites.

RON PAUL '08

Re:When will N***ERTECH adopt it? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22104990)

Can Cmdrtaco please ban these people?

Re:When will ***NIGGER***TECH adopt it? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22105014)

trolls are on topic for this article you lowdown filthy nigger.

ron paul 2008

Re:When will N***ERTECH adopt it? (-1, Offtopic)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105046)

Free speech you don't like is still free speech.

It's all or nothing.

"Free Speech" has nothing to do with Slashdot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22105112)

Free speech issues are about governments making laws to curtail citizens' freedom of expression.

Slashdot is not a government. It is a privately-owned, for-profit site.

Any dimwit wanting to spew the N-word is free to do so in his own home, on the websites he owns and all over his personal computer. But no one has a "right" to come on to private property and violate the wishes of the owners.

There is no good reason not to ban those neo-Nazi pieces of shit.

Re:"Free Speech" has nothing to do with Slashdot (1)

bug1 (96678) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105158)

"Free speech issues are about governments making laws to curtail citizens' freedom of expression. ...
But no one has a "right" to come on to private property and violate the wishes of the owners."

So who do you think governs these rights that you say people dont have ?

Re:"Free Speech" has nothing to do with Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22105206)

You don't even have the illusion of free speech here anyway, so what's the argument over?

-1 moderation is a scarlet letter and is effectively censorship.

Re:"Free Speech" has nothing to do with Slashdot (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22105262)

The point is don't bitch about "rights" if you don't practice them yourself.

Slashdot readers act like they care about free speech, but when they get the chance, they censor it (with a -1). Looks like we have some hypocrites on our hands.

Re:When will NIGGERTECH adopt it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22106400)

Lord im getting old,i remember when a troll was a clever red herring dragged across a discussion being conducted by people who's lips don't move when they read in the hope of either advancing a hidden agenda or breaching someone's usually comfy prejudices. the n word!? is there a group of people anywhere who havn't heard it? is there anyone who actually cares? for fucks sake black people call each other nigger! its got the shock value of do you know where baby's come from? and goatse!? spare me. theres more shock/horror in my tax refund. who do these nitwits think they are trolling ned flanders? i like being shocked now and then i chuckled my way thru requiem for a dream last night and the n word is going to ruin my day? lol adolescence is a rough time kids,but when you finally get enough money together to hire a hooker you will find out that sex is like hearing the nigger word for the first time, its special. After that its just more of the same. Cause no woman is going to fuck you for free trust me!

I am not applauding. (-1, Flamebait)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22104878)

GPL 3 in my opinion takes to many rights away from the developer. So I can no longer use QT to make whatever application I choose... Say a Media Player that could support DRM music, legally. It is one thing to make your app GPL but I really hate developer's toolkits in such a restrictive license. I want the freedom to do what I want with my code. And find and use the best tools to help me focus on completing what I want. QT is a good multi-platform Graphics Library. But now I am restricted. Just because some people decided that DRM is evil... Unless I am IBM and I am a big financial donator to the FSF, then that case they will alter the license to allow my DRM To work.
I agree DRM is a bad idea and I personally don't care for it, but... I hate the idea of people saying if you are going to use these tools you can't do this with it... I am a big supporter of GPL2 and Open Source and software freedom. But saying I can't use my software for what you consider Evil is not freedom to me.
I know if I make DRM program I am theoretically removing freedom of the end user... But as I see it I give them freedom to choose to read DRM information where otherwise they cannot use it at all and give them a disadvantage. Besides it is very difficult to make a working secure DRM system open source but to say I can't try just makes me angry.
I am not going to blindly follow someone or a group based on past good deeds I am going to follow the group that I feel is protecting my freedoms now and not trying to control me. If you see the history many of the most oppressive dictators got into power because they were one of the strongest fighters for freedom. But after they got control and recognition they started to pull the reigns on their supporter and slowly take away the freedom. Leaving people to have less freedom then when they started with... I see the FSF starting to do the same and using people who blindly support the old FSF and slowing adding restrictions and making it sound good. For people to bend their principals a little bit each time.

Re:I am not applauding. (4, Informative)

AJWM (19027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22104924)

So I can no longer use QT to make whatever application I choose..

Sure you can; just pay Trolltech for a commercial license. That's always been an option.

Re:I am not applauding. (0)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22104934)

But by doing so I cannot make a GPL 2 app, or an other Open Source app.

Re:I am not applauding. (5, Informative)

Fry-kun (619632) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105108)

Wrong again: if you pay for a commercial QT license, you can develop ANYTHING YOU WANT on top of it.

Re:I am not applauding. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22106190)

Wrong again: if you pay for a commercial QT license, you can develop ANYTHING YOU WANT on top of it.
Actually, that's not exactly true.

Qt's commercial license indeed has a restriction, that you can not develop an application that was *previously* developed on the GPL version of Qt. So you can't develop your software against the GPLed Qt, test the waters, and only when there looks like to be profit, buy a commercial lincense and ship it.

This is a very reasonable restriction, but a restriction nontheless. So it's not "anything you want" as you claimed.

Re:I am not applauding. (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105194)

Why can't you?

If you're making GPL 2 code, then implicitly you're distributing source. Make your source code GPL 2 and let the user supply their own Qt library. That's how it's done right now anyway. Qt comes with the OS as a part of the system. None of the apps on your box have Qt bundled. If you're not distributing Qt you don't have to worry.

Re:I am not applauding. (4, Informative)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 6 years ago | (#22106350)

But by doing so I cannot make a GPL 2 app, or an other Open Source app.

( -1, RTFA )

Qt is now triple-licensed [trolltech.com] :

For clients and users who are somehow constrained to the GPLv2, nothing changes. Qt is now a triple-licensed toolkit: commercial, GPL version 2 and GPL version 3 (technically, the X11 version is even quadruple-licensed). In the Open Source version, you get to choose which one you want to apply to your code. And if neither option is suitable for your needs, theres always the commercial alternative. One other thing I would like to point out is the fact that we are future-proofing it. The new license headers say specifically that you may:

(at your option) use any later version of the GNU General Public License if such license has been publicly approved by Trolltech ASA (or its successors, if any) and the KDE Free Qt Foundation.

So, I hope your fears are thoroughly allayed, and you can go about your business today with piece of mind that at least on commercial software vendor understands your software licensing worries.

Re:I am not applauding. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22104938)

You are plain wrong. Qt is released under GPL v3 and GPL v2. Just chose the license you prefer at your convenience.

Re:I am not applauding. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22104960)

In that case and if both versions will be equally kept up to date I am happy.

yeah, but it's free (2)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105050)

They wrote QT, they want to distribute QT, and they chose terms to do it.

Obey their terms if you want to use their product. If not, find something else or write your own.

Re:I am not applauding. (2, Informative)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105008)

Wow, way to spread FUD.

The GPLv3 requires that if you sell a piece of hardware that allows the software in it to be updated, and that software is covered by the GPLv3, the user must be able to update it with their own version as well as versions you supply. There's nothing about not allowing DRM.

This makes it easier for a user to bypass DRM for end-user devices like Kindle or the iPhone and such. But it doesn't disallow you from implementing it. So your point is basically as wrong as saying that the GPLv2 doesn't allow you to make money on your software.

Re:I am not applauding. (1)

gadzook33 (740455) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105292)

Also, ironically, you used "then you" in your sig. Also, it's grammatically incorrect. And the punctuation is wrong.

So there's a possibility they are smarter than you.

Re:I am not applauding. (1)

10e6Steve (545457) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105370)

This is getting confusing. I can understand thousands of lines of code of complex algorithms, but ask me about GPL and I'm lost.

Re:I am not applauding. (1)

DaleGlass (1068434) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105010)

So I can no longer use QT to make whatever application I choose... Say a Media Player that could support DRM music, legally.

I haven't seen anything in the GPL3 that would forbid you from making a program that implements DRM, and say, refuses to play media files that don't satisfy licensing requirements.

What it doesn't allow you is to code a player that through DRM enforcement is itself not modifiable, but such a thing isn't really GPLd in the first place. What good does source do to anybody if it can't be used in practice?

Re:I am not applauding. (1)

DigbyChickenCaesar (1118821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105042)

Complete and utter rubbish.

You say

But saying I can't use my software for what you consider Evil
That is a complete and utter strawman. No-one but you can say how your code can be used. If I were to assume that you were an intelligent person I would guess that you meant:

But saying I can't use a combination of your software and my software, for what you consider Evil

But that is a completely different kettle of fish.

You can do anything you like with the code you write, but if you want to use any code written by someone else you have to abide by their rules. It really is simple and it was summed up years ago (paraphrasing):

Your freedom to do as you like stops at the tip of my nose

You can still use GPL v2 with Qt (5, Informative)

knuty (136597) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105054)

The press statement [trolltech.com] says:
  Qt is already available under the GPL v2 and will continue to be so in addition to the GPL v3.

Re:I am not applauding. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22105066)

"...with my code."

And therein is the problem with your argument. It is not your code. It is the code of the person who wrote it.

With anything that is yours, which means you wrote it, you have complete freedom to ignore the GPL, do what you want with it or even roll it up and smoke it like a cigar. Until then please stop wanting a free ride off other people's work. Yes, it is your decision to use the developer toolkit that someone else wrote.

Re:I am not applauding. (2, Informative)

Artraze (600366) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105130)

The GPL isn't, and never was, about developer freedom; it's about end user freedom. TrollTech understands this very well. If you want freedom as a developer then you'll have to pay them for it. That's their business model. They'll let you have their library for free if you give your software away for free as well. Otherwise you pay. Switching to the GPL 3 just furthers this policy.

Re:I am not applauding. (0, Redundant)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105168)

Qt will be under GPL3 AND GPL2! (As well as QPL for Qt/X11). Nothing has changed for you except that you have one new option. In addition, the license from Trolltech includes disclaimers for most common Open Source licenses.

Your worries are very mislaid.

Re:I am not applauding. (3, Insightful)

ilikepi314 (1217898) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105178)

I did not think the GPL3 said "DRM is evil", just that you have to make available a way of removing the DRM if the user requests it. Is my understanding completely off, or can someone support me on that?

I hate the idea of people saying if you are going to use these tools you can't do this with it
Well, that's exactly my complaint with DRM. You say this, and then complain that you aren't able to tell people "you have to get music with my DRM, you can't do what you want with it.". Seems a bit hypocritical. You want to use toolkits for what you want; when I get buy music, I want to listen to it where and when I want. Same principle. Why do you deserve more freedom than I?

But as I see it I give them freedom to choose to read DRM information where otherwise they cannot use it at all and give them a disadvantage.
Much like giving people the freedom to choose to get a barcode tatooed on the back of their neck so they can get what they need, when otherwise they wouldn't be able to, eh? That's not really a freedom if you have no choice in the matter. I think I'm more worried about what you just said than what RMS has ever said.

Re:I am not applauding. (1)

jimbostyx (964836) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105210)

From the horse's mouth [gnu.org] :

...you can use code released under GPLv3 to develop any kind of DRM technology you like. However, if you do this, section 3 says that the system will not count as an effective technological "protection" measure, which means that if someone breaks the DRM, he will be free to distribute his software too, unhindered by the DMCA and similar laws.
As I read that, it means you can't sue someone if they break your DRM implementation. Seems fair to me.

Re:I am not applauding. (1)

filbranden (1168407) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105274)

So I can no longer use QT to make whatever application I choose... Say a Media Player that could support DRM music, legally.

Of course you can make a GPL (v2 or v3) application which is defective by design [defectivebydesign.org] . You just can not prevent anyone from fixing it!

Re:I am not applauding. (1)

donaldm (919619) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105430)

Well GPL3 and GPL2 do take away the "so called rights of a developer" to grab the code and make it their own. If you want to get GPL'd code and keep it in-house that's ok, but if you sell the modified code you must provide the source on request. Personally I cannot see a problem with that. Anyway the GPL can exist with proprietary code however it is important to define the line between them. Actually I don't know of any license that requires you to make your source (providing it is your own source) available or even owned by the maker's license of a library (look at NAG or IMSL libraries if you want an example) or even a compiler. In other words your proprietary code can call QT Libraries but you can not modify the QT libraries without publishing the changes.

Like it or not software is becoming the new land grab and ruthless companies (not just Microsoft) can ride roughshod over a well meaning and in many ways an idealistic software developer by actually take away their code and make it their own with no compensation to the developer, this is what the GPL was written to redress.

No formal or even informal agreement can exist in within the fabric of a societies Law without amendments added to it over time to hopefully protect the rights of the person or persons who it applies to. Looking at the GPL which was written almost 19 years ago, over time newer amendments must be made to cope with the vagaries of Law and to date GPL3 the latest revision.

I am not going to blindly follow someone or a group based on past good deeds I am going to follow the group that I feel is protecting my freedoms now and not trying to control me. If you see the history many of the most oppressive dictators got into power because they were one of the strongest fighters for freedom. But after they got control and recognition they started to pull the reigns on their supporter and slowly take away the freedom. Leaving people to have less freedom then when they started with... I see the FSF starting to do the same and using people who blindly support the old FSF and slowing adding restrictions and making it sound good. For people to bend their principals a little bit each time.
No one is asking you to blindly follow someone, the choice has always been yours. If you don't like the GPL then use some other License if you wish, the choice is entirely up to you. Of course when I read what you have written which likens the FSF to something like the Nazi Party in the late 1920's that reads like trolling. At least you don't have to worry that some jack-booted, brown-shirted FSF member is going to intimidate you or start beating up on innocent Microsoft employees, or worse yet Richard Stallman here [xkcd.com] defending himself against ninja's. :-)

haha, suck it. WOOO WOOO! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22104898)

take a lickie of my skin-whistle!

actually, since you're a nigger, just shut fuck up..

+5000000000 INSIGHTFUL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22105058)

Centuries in the future people will read these archives and recognize the wisdom of parent poster regardless of shortsighted moderation.

Niggers won't, of course. By then Ron Paul will have dealt with them all.

Vote Ron Paul 2008

Greate news! (-1, Offtopic)

scenestar (828656) | more than 6 years ago | (#22104922)

This has really taken away my final doubts about using qt-toolkit.

As silly as it might sound, I always have a certain level of suspicion when a company doesn't release their stuff under a gpl license .

This truly makes qt and OPEN platform, and as far as I'm concerned gives a green light to using it inside my company.

Re:Greate news! (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22104978)

The summary implies at least that it was under GPL2 before. So what problem did you have with it then?

Do your research. (5, Informative)

AJWM (19027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22104998)

Trolltech first released its Qt toolkit (for X11) under the GPL (v2) back in 2000. The Mac version was GPL'd in 2003 and the Windows version in 2005.

This announcement just means that they're adding GPL v3 to the licensing (it will remain licensed under GPL v2 also).

Re:Do your research. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22106284)

If he can't be bothered to research how to spell "great", why would you expect him to know anything about software licensing?

Now for usability... (1)

adamkennedy (121032) | more than 6 years ago | (#22104928)

Great, now if they could just maintain all their language bindings properly so those of us in non-C land could actually use Qt, we'd be home.

Re:Now for usability... (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105238)

Jambi is the Java bindings, and is a Trolltech offering. It is very powerful, robust and fast. PyQt is for Python, and is a product of Riverbank Computing (with a licensing model similar to Qt's). It is also of very high quality, and kept closely in sync with Trolltech's offerings. There are also some Ruby bindings in the Open Source community, but I am not as familiar with them.

the question is... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22104936)

is it as open as gnome?

Re:the question is... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22104968)

how many gnomes have you opened, pervert?

Here is the question... (-1, Offtopic)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22104956)

...Will Redhat or Ubuntu bite KDE coded using the latest QT? I doubt it myself as I know GPL v3 appears to take more freedom away from developers.

Re:Here is the question... (0, Troll)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105052)

I can't remember any more. Is the GPL about freedom of developers or the "the bits want to be free!!!!!!!1111" free? Arg, my head is starting to hurt. Blarg.

Re:Here is the question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22105142)

...Will Redhat or Ubuntu bite KDE coded using the latest QT?
why not? unless they're in the business of restricting your ability to modify code by hardware means they shouldn't have any trouble with it.

I doubt it myself as I know GPL v3 appears to take more freedom away from developers.
how so? explain.

Re:Here is the question... (2, Insightful)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105424)

Every GNU+Linux distribution (which includes Ubuntu and Red Hat) already ships a bunch of GPLv3 applications. From the perspective of companies that distribute general purpose operating systems, GPLv3 is strictly better than GPLv2 because of the internationalized wording and the "contributors can't screw the community with patents" provisions.

I hope they still keep their commercial licence (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105002)

Those devs deserver their salaries. I would purchase a license for their product for a big project even if it was to be open source.

Re:I hope they still keep their commercial licence (1)

babbling (952366) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105418)

The commercial license is how they make their money. They get their library popular through Free Software, and if someone wants to distribute a proprietary application (eg. Google with Google Earth) that uses their library, they have to buy a proprietary-compatible license for Qt.

I reckon this is one of the more feasible Free Software business models.

Tha'ts great news! (1)

zukinux (1094199) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105004)

in-fact, if you're not familiar with the GPLv3 I recommend you on the GPLv3 quick guide click here [gnu.org]
I think you, mr. developer, should be happy as-well.
Good luck and good night :)

The problem I have with QT's licensing (1, Informative)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105152)

QT has two different licenses - their open-source license, and their commercial license. This is not a problem - I'm fine with this.

The problem I have is that they require that any software written for their commercial-license library be only written for their commercial-license library. This means that if, like me, you're someone trying to start a game studio looking for a basic windowing library for an editor, you have three basic choices:

* Write your editor with their free library, then never be able to distribute it in any way without GPL'ing it
* Shell out $$$ for the commercial library, whether or not you'll ever need to distribute it
* Use a different library

Obviously I've chosen #3, but I can't help but think that perhaps Trolltech lost a sale there - I probably would have used QT if it had been a viable option, and if I'd ever decided to distribute the editor I likely would have gladly paid the licensing fee. It's a bizarre licensing decision.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing (4, Informative)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105212)

The problem I have is that they require that any software written for their commercial-license library be only written for their commercial-license library.

Nonsense! You can use the commercial version to write BOTH commercial and Free Software.

Write your editor with their free library, then never be able to distribute it in any way without GPL'ing it

Not entirely correct. Their GPL license includes disclaimers for several common Open Source licenses. You still need to open your source, but you are not limited to a single license.

As for the future of your app, decide before you start which license you will be using. It is not fair to the Qt developers (who get paid from license sales) to "cheat" by developing under the Free Software license and then switching to the commercial license when you release it.

You may use the GPL version for training and learning the library. And there is an Evaluation license if you wish to evaluate Qt for your own project. But when you start the actual coding of your software, purchase a commercial license if you intend for your software to commercial itself.

It's quid pro quo. Do unto Trolltech as you would have Trolltech do unto you.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing (3, Insightful)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 6 years ago | (#22106110)

I think you're missing my point somewhat - I can't, as a small developer who doesn't even know if his software is going to be released commercially, start coding now and then purchase a license later. I'm a small game developer and my editor may be of no interest to anyone but me. But if it does turn out to be useful to release it, and I don't want to release it open-source, I can't simply buy a commercial license and be done with it.

Why should Trolltech mind if I bought a license later rather than sooner? They're still getting the license. One way just forces me to decide much earlier, when I may simply not have the information that I need to determine which is the right course of action. (Which, in this case, turns out to be "don't use QT".)

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105218)

This seems like a very common use case, have you contacted them about this?

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing (1)

pherthyl (445706) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105266)

While you are technically correct (Trolltech say you must start with the commercial version if you're gonna use it at all), realistically that's not the case.
First of all, they don't have a legal leg to stand on. They just want you to buy your licenses early, but its not like they could do anything about it if you don't.
Secondly, it's not like they're going to refuse to sell you a license when you want to buy one, because you now decided to make your program closed source.
Thirdly, they won't ever find out.

So just start your project with the GPL version, and if it turns out you need the proprietary license down the line, go buy it. Qt is an amazing toolkit, and it's well worth the money.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing (1)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105448)

> First of all, they don't have a legal leg to stand on. They just want you to buy your licenses early, but its not like they could do anything about it if you don't.

Um, they could simply refuse to sell you a license.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing (2, Insightful)

filbranden (1168407) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105336)

Actually, you can develop all your software using the GPL version (without distributing it) and then decide to distribute it under a commercial license.

The GPL actually requires that when you distribute a software you distribute the source code with it.

If you never distribute the software developed with the GPL version of Qt, you'll never have to give away your source.

When you have the finished version ready, you may purchase Qt license and distribute it commercially as closed source or anyway you want.

Re:The problem I have with QT's licensing (4, Informative)

dschl (57168) | more than 6 years ago | (#22106152)

Ummm.....no.

As others have noted already in this thread, that sort of behaviour is expressly forbidden under the QT licensing. The GPL licensing only applies to open source code developed with QT. If you wish to release commercially, you have to make that decision before you start writing code, and follow their commercial license terms (not the GPL). Their commercial license overview is fairly clear in stating that you cannot legally release commercial code that was developed using the GPL edition.

From Trolltech: [trolltech.com]

You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Trolltech or from any of its authorized resellers before you start developing proprietary software. The Commercial license does not allow the incorporation of code developed with the Open Source Edition of Qt into a proprietary product.

Firefox (and OpenOffice more or less) (0, Redundant)

filbranden (1168407) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105198)

If they port Firefox to Qt, I might consider switching.

Until then, Gtk is the only toolkit that can run everything I need on a computer. I simply find stupid the idea of having two different installed toolkits on the same computer, so until Qt can run Firefox and, less importantly but still somewhat relevant, OpenOffice (KOffice might be a good alternative though) and Gimp (don't know any good one in Qt), I won't install it.

Although Konqueror is a good browser, it's still light-years behind Firefox. Firefox is my bread and butter nowadays, as I suspect it is for many others. I couldn't live with it, and as long as this is true, I couldn't be without Gtk either.

Re:Firefox (and OpenOffice more or less) (4, Insightful)

pherthyl (445706) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105322)

I simply find stupid the idea of having two different installed toolkits on the same computer

Why? That makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you really can't spare the extra ~5mb of ram, what's the issue? You realize that Windows is probably running about 5 different toolkits at once right?

less importantly but still somewhat relevant, OpenOffice

You do realize that Openoffice uses its own toolkit called VCL, right? Which means, that your computer has two different toolkits installed! Egad! Quick, uninstall Openoffice!
The only reason it integrates into Gnome is because there is a GTK compatibility layer, just like there is a Qt compatibility layer for KDE.

Not to mention Firefox uses XUL and XBL. GTK can be used to render some interface widgets, but that is minor in comparison.

Re:Firefox (and OpenOffice more or less) (1)

filbranden (1168407) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105364)

You realize that Windows is probably running about 5 different toolkits at once right?

Exactly my point!

Any step I can take to reduce the bloat, I'll take it!

Openoffice uses its own toolkit called VCL... Firefox uses XUL and XBL...

All of them running over Gtk. If I want to change anything on the interface, I can go to .gtkrc* and do it, it will reflect on every software using Gtk, but not on any software using Qt. That's what I mean with "I simply find stupid the idea of having two different installed toolkits on the same computer". It hurts much more than it helps.

Re:Firefox (and OpenOffice more or less) (3, Insightful)

pherthyl (445706) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105420)

All of them running over Gtk.

Over GTK? No, the exact opposite. GTK is a shell on top (Openoffice also has a Qt shell). And you think that doesn't contribute to bloat? It's worse, because now you've actually got two whole toolkits loaded in memory at any given time. So don't think you're really saving anything.

I can go to .gtkrc* and do it, it will reflect on every software using Gtk

Well when I'm running KDE, I change the colours and fonts, and those colours get applied to GTK apps if I tick the box..

Re:Firefox (and OpenOffice more or less) (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105606)

How can a comment that invokes such insightful responses be considered "Redundant"?

Re:Firefox (and OpenOffice more or less) (3, Interesting)

m50d (797211) | more than 6 years ago | (#22106130)

Although Konqueror is a good browser, it's still light-years behind Firefox. Firefox is my bread and butter nowadays, as I suspect it is for many others. I couldn't live with it, and as long as this is true, I couldn't be without Gtk either.

Just out of interest, what makes you prefer firefox? I switched to konqueror as my primary browser nearly two years ago and haven't looked back - so much faster and "cleaner"-looking.

Which GPL Version For Ogg Frog? (2, Interesting)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105356)

I'm developing a Free Software audio application called Ogg Frog [oggfrog.com] . It will be GPL when it is released, but I'm not certain whether to make it GPLv2-only, or GPLv3-only. I'm not comfortable with the "or any later version" clauses many GPL programs have.

I realize that GPLv3 was designed to address a lot of problems such as Tivoization, but in following the debate on the Debian-Legal mailing list, I'm not completely comfortable with choosing version three.

Trying to actually read the whole license to decide for myself just makes my head spin.

Note: there is no software to download yet; there won't be any until the alpha test version is ready.

Re:Which GPL Version For Ogg Frog? (3, Insightful)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105488)

I'm not comfortable with the "or any later version" clauses many GPL programs have.

Consider very carefully what the actual potential costs and benefits of such a clause are before deciding not to use it.

One of the key advantages to using any version of the GPL is that your code can be combined with other code that was written separately and also released under the GPL. "Version X or later" code can always be combined. When the next version comes out, "Version X only" code will be uncombinable. That basically means that - unless your project is Linux sized and can get away with having its own license - "Version X or later" is the only answer that will allow your project to outlive your personal work on it.

Re:Which GPL Version For Ogg Frog? (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105572)

You can always take that clause out. But as another poster who replied to you commented, this may not be the best solution.

No Shareware for Qt/KDE (1, Insightful)

Yahma (1004476) | more than 6 years ago | (#22105842)

As the developer of an Open Source package based on GTK called LiarLiar [sourceforge.net] , I am very pleased that Trolltech decided to offer the Linux community such a powerful and easy to use toolkit; however, I chose to use Gtk+ because I may decide someday to release a Shareware version of my application. I receive nowhere near enough income from my app to even pay 1/10th of the license fee and I suspect many other developers are in the same boat. While the big commercial developers can afford a license, the thousands of small shareware authors would never be able to justify the license fees to be able to release their software. Thus, they will end up sticking with the windows API's.

Now if Trolltech decided to release Qt as LGPL, that would make cross-platform development of many shareware applications possible, but would likely hurt Trolltech's bottom line.

---
Top 10 Business/Legal Websites [homezimmer.net] | Top Anonymity Websites [proxygoldmine.com]

TROLLtech? (0, Offtopic)

Carbon016 (1129067) | more than 6 years ago | (#22106062)

Does Slashdot contract them out for the comments section or something?

Compatible with EPL? (1)

PJPoon (1000016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22106154)

If GPL 3 is compatible with the Eclipse Public License, does this mean we'll see a SWT Qt port anytime soon?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...