On Wednesday 31 Dec 2008 5:02:25 pm jtd wrote:
well, I read the licenses you sent. I agree with JTD that there is no way trolltech/nokia can prevent me from using the open source version to develop and distribute closed source code.
While your contention is correct (ref your second para), that is not what i am getting at. What i am saying is that troltech's contention that i cannot commercially distribute gpl software is rubbish. Trolltech is implying that i cannot sell gpl software because their licence is gpl + restrictions. Thus a person wanting to profit by selling a package with GPLv2 /3 QT libs under the terms of the gpl cannot do so because trolltech has licenced QT as gpl + trolltech restrictions. In which case QT is not gpl and trolltech is conning the public by pretending their licence is gpl. And if it is gpl i can sell commercially with source and no additional restriction as per the gpl.
Which ever way you look at it the are playing a con game, as far as their licence page goes.
Agree - they have a license section which forms part of the code they distribute. This has the GPL quoted verbatim, giving all the rights GPL gives with only one modification relating to openssl - THERE IS NO OTHER MODIFICATION. There is also a file named OPENSOURCE-NOTICE.TXT. Here they have tacked on some conditions - but these conditions do not form part of the license - if they did, then it is doubtful whether either FSF or OSF would recognise their license. So the con game is also there in the code itself.