Note: The qt-interest archive has moved to http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/, and qt-interest.trolltech.com is no longer updated with new content. Please use that link instead.
Here are all the messages with subject "The KDE Free Qt Foundation The KDE Free Qt Foundation", and all replies to such messages. Note that some of the links in the text may perhaps not work any more when you read this.The KDE project and Troll Tech AS, the creators of Qt, are pleased to announce the founding of the 'KDE Free Qt Foundation'. The purpose of this foundation is to guarantee the availability of Qt for free software development now and in the future. The foundation will control the rights to the Qt Free Edition and ensure that current and future releases of Qt will be available for free software development at all times. All changes to the Qt Free Edition license will have to be approved by the KDE Free Qt Founda- tion which will consist of two members of Troll Tech AS as well as two members of the KDE project. One of the representatives of the KDE project will have a double vote to be used in case of a tie. Should Troll Tech ever discontinue the Qt Free Edition for any rea- son including, but not limited to, a buy-out of Troll Tech, a merger or bankruptcy, the latest version of the Qt Free Edition will be released under the BSD license. Furthermore, should Troll Tech cease continued development of Qt, as assessed by a majority of the KDE Free Qt Foundation, and not release a new version at least every 12 months, the Foundation has the right to release the Qt Free Edition under the BSD License. At this point lawyers are working on the details of the agree- ment. Troll Tech and the KDE project expect to be able to sign the necessary documents within a few weeks. We believe the founding of the KDE Free Qt Foundation to be an unprecedented ground-breaking step, ushering in a new era of soft- ware development, allowing the KDE project, the free software commu- nity, all free software developers as well as commercial software developers to prosper in a mutually supportive fashion. Bernd Johannes Wuebben Eirik Eng The KDE Project Troll Tech CEO wuebben@kde.org Eirik.Eng@troll.no
Under the BSD license? That will kill KDE since one cannot link BSD code with GPLed code, and KDE itself is GPLed. They should use LGPL instead. What are they thinking? Also the BSD license will kill Troll's commerical products too, since people won't pay if they can use the BSD version in any commerical products. Troll Tech should reconsider the choice of the BSD license. -- [ signature omitted ]
> > >
> > > The KDE Free Qt Foundation
> > >
> > > Should Troll Tech ever discontinue the Qt Free Edition for any rea-
> > > son including, but not limited to, a buy-out of Troll Tech, a merger
> > > or bankruptcy, the latest version of the Qt Free Edition will be
> > > released under the BSD license.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, should Troll Tech cease continued development of Qt, as
> > > assessed by a majority of the KDE Free Qt Foundation, and not
> > > release a new version at least every 12 months, the Foundation has
> > > the right to release the Qt Free Edition under the BSD License.
>
> Under the BSD license? That will kill KDE since one cannot link BSD code with GPLed code, and KDE itself is GPLed. They should use LGPL instead. What are
> they thinking? Also the BSD license will kill Troll's commerical products too, since people won't pay if they can use the BSD version in any commerical
> products. Troll Tech should reconsider the choice of the BSD license.
You can if you use a BSD license without the publicity requirement.
The linux kernel contains BSD licensed code, you know...
("\''/").__..-''"`-. . Roberto Alsina
`9_ 9 ) `-. ( ).`-._.`) ralsina@unl.edu.ar
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._`. " -.-' Centro de Telematica
_..`-'_..-_/ /-'_.' Universidad Nacional del Litoral
(l)-'' ((i).' ((!.' Santa Fe - Argentina
KDE Developer (MFCH)
"I can attempt anything, specialization is for insects" (50% Heinlein).
Let me play "license nomenclature police" for a moment. Let's call it (as RMS suggests) an X11-style license when it doesn't have the obnoxious publicitly requirement. So I would say "The linux kernel contains X11-style licensed code".
>
> Roberto> You can if you use a BSD license [with GPL code] without
> Roberto> the publicity requirement. The linux kernel contains BSD
> Roberto> licensed code, you know...
>
> Let me play "license nomenclature police" for a moment. Let's call it
> (as RMS suggests) an X11-style license when it doesn't have the
> obnoxious publicitly requirement.
>
> So I would say "The linux kernel contains X11-style licensed code".
Ok with me.
I suggest updating it to "Old style X11 license" tough ;-)
("\''/").__..-''"`-. . Roberto Alsina
`9_ 9 ) `-. ( ).`-._.`) ralsina@unl.edu.ar
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._`. " -.-' Centro de Telematica
_..`-'_..-_/ /-'_.' Universidad Nacional del Litoral
(l)-'' ((i).' ((!.' Santa Fe - Argentina
KDE Developer (MFCH)
"I can attempt anything, specialization is for insects" (50% Heinlein).
How about you go and read the BSD license before making rediculous statements like this.... While you're at it why don't you read the above announcement and consider the circumstances where the BSD license will apply. You're lack of understanding is staggering.. -Mark > -- > Li-Cheng Tai (Andy Tai) e-mail: atai@ece.ucsd.edu > > Free software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people, > worldwide. Develop! Share! Enhance! And enjoy! > > -- > List archive and information: http://www.troll.no/qt-interest/ -- [ signature omitted ]
This is great!!! Thanks to all the Trolls. -- [ signature omitted ]
Roberto> Ok with me. I suggest updating it to "Old style X11
Roberto> license" tough ;-)
Oh shit, you're right! That won't work very well, then: "old-style
X11" and "new style BSD" don't work well.
How about Apache-style?
>
> >> So I would say "The linux kernel contains X11-style licensed
> >> code".
>
> Roberto> Ok with me. I suggest updating it to "Old style X11
> Roberto> license" tough ;-)
>
> Oh shit, you're right! That won't work very well, then: "old-style
> X11" and "new style BSD" don't work well.
>
> How about Apache-style?
I must confess not having read Apache's license. (I use Roxen, which is GPL)
("\''/").__..-''"`-. . Roberto Alsina
`9_ 9 ) `-. ( ).`-._.`) ralsina@unl.edu.ar
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._`. " -.-' Centro de Telematica
_..`-'_..-_/ /-'_.' Universidad Nacional del Litoral
(l)-'' ((i).' ((!.' Santa Fe - Argentina
KDE Developer (MFCH)
"I can attempt anything, specialization is for insects" (50% Heinlein).
Couple of comments: 1. You should be nice. 2. You should not insult other people when you think you have an idea of what they are commenting. 3. You are being particularly annoying. 4. You are not contributing anything interesting to the debate, you are just flaming. Now, to the content: he is correct and you are wrong. The GPL license is not compatible with the BSD license. This is a long known issue: the reason is that GPL code can not be linked with code that is under a more restrictive license (and the BSD license is considered to be more restrictive as it includes the "credit should be given" clause). Miguel.
> Now, to the content: he is correct and you are wrong. > > The GPL license is not compatible with the BSD license. This is a > long known issue: the reason is that GPL code can not be linked with > code that is under a more restrictive license (and the BSD license is > considered to be more restrictive as it includes the "credit should be > given" clause). > I'm not very familiar with the BSD license. Does it have a condition similar to GPL that you can't link with code under a more restrictive license? If not, then wouldn't GPL be the more restrictive license? Given two licenses, how does one determine which license is the most restrictive, if each have a different set of clauses that may not have an exact counterpart in the other license? Compound this by the long known issue that two people reading the GPL come to different conclusions about what is required and what is not makes it hard for you to say with any certainty who is right and who is wrong. regards, Val Gough
The matter is not figuring out who is wrong and who is right on the licenses. It only matters what the licenses allows you to do: The GNU GPL is designed to protect software from software hoarders. Code under the GNU GPL includes a clauses that explicitly forbids linking GNU GPL code with code that has any further restriction that do not exist on the GNU GPL. That is all there is to it. This does not allow you to link code under the GPL with code released under the terms of the BSD licenses (the one people are familiar with). > Given two licenses, how does one determine which license is the most > restrictive, if each have a different set of clauses that may not have an > exact counterpart in the other license? Compound this by the long known > issue that two people reading the GPL come to different conclusions about > what is required and what is not makes it hard for you to say with any > certainty who is right and who is wrong. Right and wrong? We are not discussing rethorics here. The GPL is a very concrete document that specifies what you are allowed to do with code covered under that license and what you are not. Miguel.
That depends on how you read the licenses. > The GPL license is not compatible with the BSD license. This is a > long known issue: the reason is that GPL code can not be linked with > code that is under a more restrictive license (and the BSD license is > considered to be more restrictive as it includes the "credit should be > given" clause). While the BSD license does state that credit should be given, in many, many other respects the LGPL license is far more restrictive. "I know you are but what am I?" :-) Obviously, I prefer the BSD license for free software, and you prefer the GPL license.. However, it's not really worth starting *another* flame war over this, so I will politely bow out and not contribute anymore to my original flame.. All the BSD vs. GPL license wars in the past have amounted to zero progress, and have been nothing more than a big waste of time... -Mark PS. My statement that the original poster look at the conditions where the Free Qt would become a BSD licensed product still stands... I think that the circumstance where Troll can no longer produce versions of Qt would be well matched with the BSD license since it would allow (essentially) another "Troll" to emerge.. Just my $.02.. > Miguel. -- [ signature omitted ]
Here is the BSD copyright license (as it ships with FreeBSD): All of the documentation and software included in the 4.4BSD and 4.4BSD-Lite Releases is copyrighted by The Regents of the University of California. Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. 4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. The views and conclusions contained in the software and documentation are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Regents of the University of California. > > Given two licenses, how does one determine which license is the most > restrictive, if each have a different set of clauses that may not have an > exact counterpart in the other license? Compound this by the long known > issue that two people reading the GPL come to different conclusions about > what is required and what is not makes it hard for you to say with any > certainty who is right and who is wrong. The whole point of the BSD license is to be "non restrictive".. Unfortunately, in the case of the LGPL, it is considered to be more restrictive since it requires that the name of the copyright holder (the person who writes the code) be present in all future copies/mods/whatever of the code... Why this is considered more restrictive, and why people go to great lengths to argue about this, is beyond me.. It's really very simple, and that's what I like about the BSD license. But hey, some people would rather argue all day about the legalise of licenses than actually code.. so on that note, I really will shut my trap this time and get back to work. :-) -Mark > regards, > Val Gough > -- [ signature omitted ]
You don't get it. No one is arguing about which license is better. According to the FSF, the author of the GPL, BSD is incompatible with GPL. That's a fact. (Old X11 license is different, if that's what Troll Tech meant by "BSD" so much the better.) > > -Mark > > PS. My statement that the original poster look at the conditions where the > Free Qt would become a BSD licensed product still stands... I think that So be it. > > Miguel. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Mark Mayo -- [ signature omitted ]
> Oh shit, you're right! That won't work very well, then: "old-style > X11" and "new style BSD" don't work well. There is a somewhat small trend in NetBSD to remove the requirement for mention in documentation. This keeps NEtBSD from having 1,000 "portions copyright" and such. --Michael
Michael> There is a somewhat small trend in NetBSD to remove the
Michael> requirement for mention in documentation. This keeps
Michael> NEtBSD from having 1,000 "portions copyright" and such.
Indeed, that's why I said "new style BSD" together with "old style
X11": they are both nice, but the terminology is not catchy because it
is a locution instead of a single name or acronym.