<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">2006/5/22, Radim Blazek <<a href="mailto:radim.blazek@gmail.com">radim.blazek@gmail.com</a>>:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 5/22/06, Glynn Clements <<a href="mailto:glynn@gclements.plus.com">glynn@gclements.plus.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> Radim Blazek wrote:<br>><br>> > What do you mean exactly. It is GPL on all platforms.
<br>> ><br>> > > There are<br>> > > subtle but maybe relevant differences in the licensing scheme and it<br>> > > seems that there is always a difference between the open source and the<br>
> > > commercial versions. But I think Radim is more qualified to judge this.<br>> ><br>> > I cannot say if there are differences, but I don't believe.<br>> > We are using GPL version on all platforms.
<br>> > There are some additional packages (QSA, Qt Solutions, Teambuilder)<br>> > which are not available under GPL on all platforms but the Qt, Qtopia<br>> > and Qtopia SDK will be most probably the same on all platforms
<br>> > and under all licenses.<br>> ><br>> > <a href="http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/matrix">http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/matrix</a><br>> ><br>> > I don't care which toolkit you choose. I just don't like to see
<br>> > that some people for some strange reasons repeat to say that<br>> > Qt is not free, which is not true.<br>><br>> The licensing information on the TrollTech site suggests that the<br>> licence for the Open Source edition isn't actually the GPL, but a
<br>> requirement that you publish your code under the terms of the GPL.<br>><br>> The GPL itself does not require that you publish your code at all. You<br>> are free to create derivative works and not publish them at all. /If/
<br>> you publish them, you must do so under the terms of the GPL.<br>><br>> TrollTech's site suggests that you cannot develop "in-house"<br>> applications using the Qt Open Source edition (and you can't obtain a
<br>> commercial licence for software which was originally developed using<br>> the Open Source edition). In which case, the licence isn't even<br>> GPL-compatible.<br><br>I cannot find anything like that. The opensource package is licenced under
<br>GPL and I don't see any exception. Where is written that you<br>must publish your code even if you do not distribute the application<br>or that you cannot develop and use "in-house" application using open source
<br>edition of Qt?<br><br>Radim</blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>There is something like that here (<a href="http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/opensource">http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/opensource
</a>)<br><br>"If you wish to use the Qt Open Source Edition, you must contribute all
your source code to the open source community in accordance
with the <span class="link-external"><a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html">GPL</a></span>
when your application is distributed."</div><br>"when your application is distributed". There are no licensing problems for me.<br>I've just dowloaded the package and the lincense packaged is the GPL.
<br></div>