On Thursday 18 September 2008 11:00:41 James Stone wrote: > 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.. And how much code are they depending on that they are not paying for? > 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.. The biggest problem is in "pretending" to use the GPL and the confusion that can / will result. Make up a new license and go to town. See what kind of traction you get without using the GPL for your code. > > James all the best, drew _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
