Alan Franzoni wrote:
>
> Just one thing I don't understand: if you're developing all your software
> inside your company, how would they know if you already coded it or you
> still have to?
I have no idea. But as I said elsewhere, I'm not in any sense a party
to the process that would attempt to define such enforcement matters.
> Also, couldn't a big company buy a *single* commercial license from the
> beginning, build a software employing hundreds of developers using the GPL
> license, and then distribute the software pretending that the single
> developer had done everything? This would hit Trolltech anyway.
True, but then have you ever used proprietary software with those
irritating floating licences or with licence keys? Sure, a company
doing stuff on the cheap could buy fewer licences than they need - I've
been in a situation where an employer has bought n licences of some
flashy-but-not-exactly-necessary solution that everyone (n + x people)
has been forced to use, and you end up with all sorts of management
workarounds ("if you're not using product X, can you log off and log
back in later?") - and I'd imagine that where technical measures aren't
the means of limiting the number of users, you get all sorts of
management workarounds to give the impression that only one developer
is using the software in other enforcement regimes: having one person
that collates and forwards support requests, for example. That
businesses would rather waste their employees' time at a much higher
cost than just forking out for more software isn't a surprise to me
whatsoever.
> I think the problem has to do with the QT license system. It's their
> problem, not a developer's one. Also, I suppose one of their commercial
> licenses provides with far lot more than a license - e.g. I think they'll
> offer support, design tools, additional docs and libraries.
I believe so, yes. However, the problem with any licensing system is
generally the developer's: if you want to sell a solution based on
Microsoft Office, is it Microsoft's problem that they chose an
ultra-proprietary licence? As a developer you do get to choose other
solutions, however. (Perhaps I've misinterpreted what you meant,
though.)
> And what would then be their income if they refused to sell you a
> commercial license because they *know* you've already coded your app using
> the GPL license of Qt? You could simply throw away your app and never
> distribute it, and they would'nt see a cent anyway.
I have no idea. It's best to ask them that question rather than random
newsgroup contributors, I think. ;-)
Paul
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
