Qt will be available under LGPL too
 

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...velopment.html

Very good news :-)

EDIT: oh, it is already on planet.maemo.org too, sorry for duplicity

Re: Qt will be available under LGPL too
 

Mhm... Not being LGLP was one of the advantages Qt had over GTK in the past. Thou shalt not lessen the GPL.

Anyway, it was clear Nokia would do this.

Re: Qt will be available under LGPL too
 

It depends on your perspective. You can either choose to be a zealot, accept no concessions, and drive people away; or you can be a pragmatist, accept a few concessions, and then proceed to convince them of the value of your ideals after you've won them over.

The second method is usually much more productive than the first.

Re: Qt will be available under LGPL too
 

The articel fanoush linked to
does contain some good news, though:

Re: Qt will be available under LGPL too
 

Never heard this side. So someone really thinks keeping Qt as GPL will result in more free software then LGPL?

Now I am reading http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html and see FSF opinion shift :eek: Anyway, this 'gpl only advantage' does not apply to Qt since it has commercial licence too.

Re: Qt will be available under LGPL too
 

One of the reasons why the industry favoured GTK over Qt was because Qt was not LGPL. Maemo, vmware, and others would most likely have been Qt-based from the beginning on.

Re: Qt will be available under LGPL too
 

It's a really old POV. I started to learn about free software and the ideas behind it in 2002/2003, and I remember back then the LGPL was considered the black sheep among licenses. It's a very logical thing, anyway, if you consider what the GPL protects and the LGPL doesn't.

No. That's not the real point. (I don't think one single project ever became free software only because they used a GPLed library and it would be very naive to expect this.)

The point is that those who write proprietary code (which is not a bad thing as such - I'm not one of those who say each and every single application needs to be free software, not even on my tablet ;) ) should not commercially exploit the work of people who originally wanted to provide free software.

(In other words: If others want to use the code for proprietary projects, make them pay and use a commercial license. Don't let them have the benefits of free software without the obligations.)

The problem with the LGPL is that it it makes contributors believe they work for a free project, while in fact they contribute directly to the proprietary (and usually: commercial) code of unknown vendors. I don't know how much of a real problem this is for the actual codebase of Qt right now, but it's a matter of principle.

There's no "opinion shift". As I said, what's written in this why-not-lgpl-article you refer to is what I read about licensing 6-7 years ago. (It might even have been the same text, among others; it looks familiar.) And it's nothing but a logical consequence of comparing LGPL and GPL.

Re: Qt will be available under LGPL too
 

I hope this thread doesn't turn into a Slashdot style GPL license deathmatch. :)

Personally I feel that "free as in freedom", not "free as in beer" makes more sense. Why shouldn't somebody be able to make money from free software. Making money is a strong motivation to develop something further, and everybody wins, in their own ways. (Then again, I'm also a GPL2 type of guy instead of a GPL3 type of guy.)

Yes, there are alternative viewpoints to this, and those are also valid. :)

Re: Qt will be available under LGPL too
 

It's a thing that Qt 'needed' Nokia for. When Trolltech was on it's own, Qt (and Qtopia) were end products. If they licensed under LGPL back then, that would directly undercut commercial licenses (GPL is a completely different story, it was QPL and not GPL because the Fear Of Fork). With Nokia in the picture, Qt becomes a mean to an end, so short term loss of revenue in exchange for market share/penetration (especially in the embedded/phone area) becomes acceptable, especially if you consider that you need to gather as many ISVs as you can before Android reaches full momentum. I'm not a market analyst, though, so take this with a grain of salt.

Re: Qt will be available under LGPL too
 

Well, the point (IIRC the FSF's position) would be that if Qt is better than other alternatives, it should stay GPLed, not LGPL, to force other code open; that's the rationale for, e.g., GNU readline*. Whereas with no improvement in functionality, it'll obviously just drive proprietary projects away.

That still works, because the commercial license costs money, thus leaving them with some incentive to GPL their project. But the LGPL gives them something for nothing -- no payment, and no release of their code, completely eliminating the residual incentive.

*GNU readline, BTW, serves in my mind as a good demonstration of why it doesn't really matter anyhow. There are Open-Source types, notably in the BSD projects, who don't like the extra restrictions of the GPL -- they actually like contributing to free software, knowing that it may be used in non-free software. So some of these people (with NetBSD) cloned it, and released the clone under a new-BSD. If you actually do add a significant advantage, you can expect this to happen. (And making Open-Source people go away for the sake of Free-Software schemes is not a realistic option.)

Actually, they do claim one package, on account of readline. And they don't say what one, so I'd guess it's of no great significance.