Terry Hancock wrote: > Given that Google has been using this fact extensively, and > they have not been sued over it, I think it's a fairly > clearly established interpretation, whether it is popular or > not (but of course it's not a legal precedent until somebody > does sue and loses).
This is not what the general interpretation of the GPL seems to be with TrollTech and several other companies. They specifically state that even when you develop inhouse software with GPL-libraries (Qt in the former case), you are required to release the code of the application under the GPL. If this weren't so (and you're the first I hear of that takes this stance), the GPL would basically be meaningless as a business model to them, and AFAICT this is also what the FSF tells people. I'd love to hear Phil Thompson's stance on this as the GPL licensing of Qt and PyQt has deterred me from creating software using Qt for university distribution (such as the new interactive testing framework I'm currently writing). In case in house use is fine with him and them, there's nothing keeping me from dumping wxPython for PyQt, is there? ;-) --- Heiko. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
