[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SEUL: What's the diff to SEUL ?

Micah Yoder wrote:
> Erik Walthinsen wrote:
> 2.  I recently read the free license and it's FAQ.  Basically, it said
> that there is no problem with including it in a Linux distrubtion.
> Also, it gave a number of reasons why Troll will *never* revoke the free
> license.  And I agree - it's giving them a *lot* of good publicity.  If
> I understand correctly, our biggest beef with the license is the
> possibility of it being revoked...but if they did that they'd only screw
> themselves!

First, is it beyond comprehension for a company to lie and/or go back on
their word?  If Qt becomes very popular due to it's Linux exposure and
the free license, how would they be screwing themselves by revoking it? 
Once they get where they want to be revoking that license isn't going to
effect the fact that a dozen commercial vendors have already bought the
license and will continue to use it reguardless of Linux developers
loosing the free license.

I assume these reasons for never revoking the license are in the FAQ not
the license it's self?  Do they have the standard bit in the *license*
that Troll can revoke or modify the license at any time without notice? 
If their intensions are *set-in-stone*, as you are saying, why not put
it right in the license?  That would make it binding.  Then I would
believe it.  Even then it would only apply to the currently released

> 3.  Our target is end users.  I've mentioned it before, but I'll say it
> again:  Not one single one of them is going to give a rip about the Qt
> license!  It doesn't affect them in any way.  Why should it?

So it won't effect them when they've changed to Linux and a year later
there's no more QT available, unless they want to pay for it?

> I'm not saying we should use KDE as the desktop.  We could, but GNOME
> appears to be taking shape nicely.  But KDE applications can run without
> using it as the window manager, and I still don't think we should refuse
> to distribute anything that uses Qt.  There's a lot of good stuff out
> there for it!

I agree in making it available.  I for one wouldn't want to loose 14MB
of disk space just to have the *ability* to run QT programs, not to
mention the space the programs themselves will use.