On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Roberto Gordo Saez <roberto.gordo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 03:29:38PM +0100, James Stone wrote: >> What I don't quite understand is that Qt has a free/commercial >> separate licensing, but no-one has the same kind of problem with qt >> that they have with LS? Would someone care to explain? > > Well, the Qt toolkit is dual licensed. If you choose to use the GPL > version, it is completely GPL and no exceptions are attached. > Notice that it is not LGPL, it is GPL only, So if you want to develop > a proprietary application with Qt, you'll need to get the proprietary > license from Qt. I have absolutely no problem with this scheme, the GPL > version is as free (or as restrictive, depending on your point of view) > as the other GPL libraries that are normally installed in a GNU/Linux > distribution. Yes I realised this as soon as I posted it. However, it really achieves the same ends.. Trolltech gets paid for commercial implementations of Qt. The trouble with using a similar license for LS is a major potential commercial implementation (including it in hardware) would not have to pay anything for using LS code.. so the developers end out with nothing. I can see why they did it, but it is annoying that there couldn't be a more open-source way of licensing it and protecting their IP... I guess it is still more Free than most closed source "freeware" though.. James _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
