king kikapu wrote: > On Apr 11, 10:56 am, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Others have given good answers. I would only like to clarify what I think is >> the >> source of confusion here. While the FSF and many open source advocates make a >> distinction between the words "commercial" (meaning that someone derives >> money >> from distributing the software, whether it is GPLed or not) and "proprietary" >> (meaning that the software is not being distributed under an open source >> license >> but one that restricts user's rights), Trolltech abuses the term >> "commercial" to >> mean "proprietary" in this case. > > Ok, i see...So i can use Qt OS edition and earn money from this as > long as i explicitly say (is a reference to a GPL in a readme text > file enough for this ?) that this software is under the GPL lisence > and i have the obligation to give the source code with it.
It's a bit more complicated than that. There are good resources for understanding the implications of the GPL on the FSF's site which other people have pointed out. I also recommend Larry Rosen's (free) book _Open Source Licensing_, particularly Chapter 6 for understanding the GPL: http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm > I will reply to that email of Trolltec's today and i will tell them > about the things mentioned here, basically just the sentence i wrote > above. > I see what they will reply and post it here... I don't recommend it. You are talking to their salesman, not your lawyer. You are being given a sales pitch, not legal advice. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
