Hey!
I want to use qtruby4 as binding to QT Framework for a commercial ruby
application. I do have a QT commercial license. Qtruby4 is GPL.
If i use the bindings, does that mean, i have to release the resulting
peace of software under the terms of GPL?
Are there other options?
Thx, CK
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Well my original plan was to dual license QtRuby, exactly like PyQt is
dual licensed, and offer both a GPL and a paid for commercial version.
But I haven't got the impression that there would be a critical mass
of commercial users yet to make that worth while.
Another problem is that it is difficult to release a Ruby program
without source code at the moment, although there have been
discussions on this forum in the past about how to do that.
The QtRuby code is copyrighted by a small number of people, and it
would certainly be possible to add another license type, such as
commercial, bsd or mit. If you really do think you need a commercial
license please email me to discuss. Note that it wouldn't be possible
to release QtRuby under an LGPL license though.
-- Richard
On Mar 3, 9:20 am, Christian Kerth <christian.ke...@dynamicmedia.at> wrote:
Hey!
I want to use qtruby4 as binding to QT Framework for a commercial ruby
application. I do have a QT commercial license. Qtruby4 is GPL.If i use the bindings, does that mean, i have to release the resulting
peace of software under the terms of GPL?Are there other options?
[...]
The QtRuby code is copyrighted by a small number of people, and it
would certainly be possible to add another license type, such as
commercial, bsd or mit. If you really do think you need a commercial
license please email me to discuss. Note that it wouldn't be possible
to release QtRuby under an LGPL license though.
It seems like LGPL would be ideal in this instance. I believe that's what
KDE uses, for exactly the same reasons. Why wouldn't it be possible for
QtRuby?
-- Richard
--Greg
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 10:59:54PM +0900, richard.j.dale@gmail.com wrote:
And with LGPL it would be possible to have a commerical license for the
whole program und just "use" the bindings as library?
Gregory Seidman wrote:
It seems like LGPL would be ideal in this instance. I believe that's
what
KDE uses, for exactly the same reasons. Why wouldn't it be possible for
QtRuby?
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Because I would need permission from Trolltech and my understanding is
that they don't like an LGPL license used with language bindings,
although they are happy that the KDE libs are LGPL'd.
A few years ago, when I asked them about changing the QtJava license
from GPL to LGPL, they were very much against the idea. They were much
happier with a QtJava dual license GPL/commercial to match the
licensing scheme of Qt itself. The QtJava bindings were never as
successful as the QtRuby ones have been, and I really don't think
there would have been much demand for a commercial version from a one
man company such as mine. The QtJambi Java bindings are more
successful some years later, perhaps because they have Trolltech's
marketing expertise and development funding right behind them. QtJambi
is dual licensed of course.
Their view may have changed now, and I haven't discussed it with
anyone from Trolltech for a while. Now that Qt is getting better and
better, and Ruby is beginning to really get some great runtimes, I
think it makes sense to start thinking of some sort of commercial
QtRuby version.
-- Richard
On Mar 3, 3:10 pm, Gregory Seidman <gsslist+r...@anthropohedron.net> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 10:59:54PM +0900, richard.j.d...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
> The QtRuby code is copyrighted by a small number of people, and it
> would certainly be possible to add another license type, such as
> commercial, bsd or mit. If you really do think you need a commercial
> license please email me to discuss. Note that it wouldn't be possible
> to release QtRuby under an LGPL license though.It seems like LGPL would be ideal in this instance. I believe that's what
KDE uses, for exactly the same reasons. Why wouldn't it be possible for
QtRuby?
Almost correct. The LGPL is compatible with the GPL, so a fully GPL'd
program can use it and, through it, a GPL-licensed Qt library. The LGPL
only applies to the specific code (usually a library) licensed with it,
however, so a commercial product could use a commercially licensed Qt
library through the LGPL'd QtRuby library and distribution of the
application would only involve an obligation to provide the QtRuby source
(under the LGPL), not the Qt source nor the source of the program nor any
license to that source.
IANAL, but this sort of compromise has come up in the past, for exactly
these reasons, and KDE is the prime (and most relevant) example.
--Greg
P.S. please don't top post.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 12:51:06AM +0900, Christian Kerth wrote:
Gregory Seidman wrote:
> It seems like LGPL would be ideal in this instance. I believe that's
> what KDE uses, for exactly the same reasons. Why wouldn't it be
> possible for QtRuby?And with LGPL it would be possible to have a commerical license for the
whole program und just "use" the bindings as library?
>
> [...]
>
> > The QtRuby code is copyrighted by a small number of people, and it
> > would certainly be possible to add another license type, such as
> > commercial, bsd or mit. If you really do think you need a commercial
> > license please email me to discuss. Note that it wouldn't be possible
> > to release QtRuby under an LGPL license though.
>
> It seems like LGPL would be ideal in this instance. I believe that's
> what KDE uses, for exactly the same reasons. Why wouldn't it be
> possible for QtRuby?Because I would need permission from Trolltech and my understanding is
that they don't like an LGPL license used with language bindings,
although they are happy that the KDE libs are LGPL'd.
I am confused. Why would you need Trolltech's permission for this?
Developing an LGPL library against a GPL library is one of the (implicit)
freedoms granted by the GPL. In fact, unless you and other contributors had
a Qt developer license the entire time you and they were developing QtRuby,
I don't believe you would be able to provide QtRuby under any license that
was not GPL-compatible. Basically, if you didn't have the right (by having
purchased a developer license from Qt) to develop closed code while you
were doing it, you don't have the right to close the code.
A few years ago, when I asked them about changing the QtJava license
from GPL to LGPL, they were very much against the idea. They were much
happier with a QtJava dual license GPL/commercial to match the
licensing scheme of Qt itself.
[...]
I find that bizarre, but I'm still not clear on why they have any say in
the matter.
Their view may have changed now, and I haven't discussed it with
anyone from Trolltech for a while. Now that Qt is getting better and
better, and Ruby is beginning to really get some great runtimes, I
think it makes sense to start thinking of some sort of commercial
QtRuby version.
I still say their view is irrelevant. Legally, I don't believe you can
release QtRuby under any license that isn't GPL-compatible at this point.
IANAL, but that's what my reading of Qt's commercial license seems to
imply.
-- Richard
--Greg
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 01:10:00AM +0900, richard.j.dale@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 3:10 pm, Gregory Seidman <gsslist+r...@anthropohedron.net> > wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 10:59:54PM +0900, richard.j.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Well I'm relaying to you what Trolltech's view was last time I spoke
to them about licensing. There is no way I would ignore their views on
something like this, and it is quite wrong to describe their view as
'irrelevant'. Free Software developers are partners of Trolltech, in
the same way that commercial licensees are, although they have
different rights and obligations - we're all part of the same eco-
system.
-- Richard
On Mar 3, 4:24 pm, Gregory Seidman <gsslist+r...@anthropohedron.net> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 01:10:00AM +0900, richard.j.d...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 3, 3:10 pm, Gregory Seidman <gsslist+r...@anthropohedron.net> > > wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 10:59:54PM +0900, richard.j.d...@gmail.com wrote:> > [...]
> > > The QtRuby code is copyrighted by a small number of people, and it
> > > would certainly be possible to add another license type, such as
> > > commercial, bsd or mit. If you really do think you need a commercial
> > > license please email me to discuss. Note that it wouldn't be possible
> > > to release QtRuby under an LGPL license though.> > It seems like LGPL would be ideal in this instance. I believe that's
> > what KDE uses, for exactly the same reasons. Why wouldn't it be
> > possible for QtRuby?> Because I would need permission from Trolltech and my understanding is
> that they don't like an LGPL license used with language bindings,
> although they are happy that the KDE libs are LGPL'd.I am confused. Why would you need Trolltech's permission for this?
Developing an LGPL library against a GPL library is one of the (implicit)
freedoms granted by the GPL. In fact, unless you and other contributors had
a Qt developer license the entire time you and they were developing QtRuby,
I don't believe you would be able to provide QtRuby under any license that
was not GPL-compatible. Basically, if you didn't have the right (by having
purchased a developer license from Qt) to develop closed code while you
were doing it, you don't have the right to close the code.> A few years ago, when I asked them about changing the QtJava license
> from GPL to LGPL, they were very much against the idea. They were much
> happier with a QtJava dual license GPL/commercial to match the
> licensing scheme of Qt itself.[...]
I find that bizarre, but I'm still not clear on why they have any say in
the matter.> Their view may have changed now, and I haven't discussed it with
> anyone from Trolltech for a while. Now that Qt is getting better and
> better, and Ruby is beginning to really get some great runtimes, I
> think it makes sense to start thinking of some sort of commercial
> QtRuby version.I still say their view is irrelevant. Legally, I don't believe you can
release QtRuby under any license that isn't GPL-compatible at this point.
IANAL, but that's what my reading of Qt's commercial license seems to
imply.