On Saturday 04 December 2004 10:30 am, Michael Sparks wrote: > On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Phil Thompson wrote: > ... > > > The key is access to the Qt API. If your applications gives the users > > access to the API then those users are developers and need their own > > licenses. On the other hand if the API is sufficiently removed from the > > Qt API then you shouldn't have a problem. Your API should restrict itself > > to extending the capabilities of your application - the more general > > purpose you make it, the more you risk a visit from the lawyers. > > What about, for example, a XUL processor? Suppose I wanted to rewrite > Mozilla's front end to us Qt, I'd clearly need to implement a XUL > processor. Obviously such a thing is possible to do with PyQT as well. > Would I be able to do such a thing with a standard windows license for Qt > and PyQt? Everything I've read suggests that this would not be possible. > > Users wouldn't have direct access to the Qt API, but they may have access > to the aspects Qt system, assuming a XUL type system, including the > ability to create new applications with new user interfaces (as one can > using Mozilla, XUL and Javascript). > > ie one could envisage writing a wrapper around every part of the Qt API, > and then expose that as an API - is that breaking the rules? I'd assume > yes. Suppose then I simply change this to an XML processor (say a > tokenising on)that when it gets a directive it simply calls the Qt API, > and allow a user to change things in a config file. Is that too far? To me > they seem equivalent. > > I don't tend to use windows much, if ever, and wouldn't want to do this at > present. However, it's fairly close to something I would like to do under > Linux (where this isn't a problem obviously), fairly close to the wind > having read the commercial licenses I could see and it just concerns me > that if I ever wanted to port such a system to windows I could get > extremely stung (Suppose I was redistributing an executeable). > > It's a hypothetical question at present, due to using Linux, but it's > (realistically) possible at some point it may become less hypothetical.
At this point I would take the coward's way out and say "ask Trolltech". As a matter of course I follow their model for PyQt (ie. if they are happy/unhappy then I'm happy/unhappy). I suspect that you are right. Borland had to come to a special arrangement for Kylix - it wasn't just a case of buying a Qt license for each of their developers. Phil -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
