On Wednesday 04 January 2006 9:18 am, Heiko Wundram wrote: > 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? ;-)
My stance is (unsurprisingly) the same as TrollTech's - whatever it happens to be. When people ask me a specific licensing question, my response is: get TrollTech's agreement and you'll have my agreement. Phil -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
