On 14 Mar 2006 06:10:19 -0800, Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. ;-)
>It's pretty obvious, though. The whole point of people doing this is that they only want to pay for 1 license once rather than X licenses for the whole dev cycle. By not selling you a license they lose $1000, but they keep enforcing a licensing system that makes them a lot more money. Their leverage comes from the fact that you've invested however much time and effort into the app development and while you can toss it you're out a great deal more than they are. I suspect that if enough money changed hands (like, you paid for your X developers backdated to when you started development) you could convince TT to sell you a license, too. > Paul > > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
