Ben Finney wrote:
Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In effect this means that if you want to develop any commercial
software with Qt you have to buy the license in advance (even if all
you want is to knock together some proof-of-concept) and you are
also permanently locked out from including any previously developed
Qt code which the wider community may have produced.
That is a common misconception,
It looks to me like the plain reading of the Trolltech license. I think
one would be foolish to act on the belief that it does not mean what it
seems to mean. Trolltech must know how people interpret it and has had
years to change it. Since they have not, I presume it says what they mean.
> which is not made any better by
misleading text like that found at the above page, and misleading
dichotomies like GPL versus “commercial license”. A careful reader
of the GPL will see that there is explicitly *no* restriction placed
on redistributing the work commercially: any fee may be charged.
The operative license for QT is the QT license, not the GPL.
They want people even thinking about going commercial to buy a
commercial license from the beginning. I am sure that in their
judgment, this gains more that it loses. And I would not be surprised
if they are right.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
