On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Faraz Shahbazker < faraz.shahbazker@gmail.com> wrote:
And more .. clearly contradicting:
http://trolltech.com/developer/faqs/192?hotspoturl=http%3A//trolltech.com/de...
http://trolltech.com/developer/faqs/191?hotspoturl=http%3A//trolltech.com/de...
Hi.
I don't (yet) see a contradiction. Opera bought licenses from QT, hence they can produce closed-source software. The reason Opera bought license(s) was to keep their own stuff (ie - the browser) built on top of QT and other things closely guarded.
The important entity to consider in this entire picture is Trolltech - they own all copyrights to the code. So, they have a model wherein they take money from someone (Opera) and give them the permission to not release the browser's code.
Trolltech - the copyright owner - has _also_ given the general public which wishes to use QT under open licenses the right to do anything with QT as long as they comply with those terms. GPL v2 and v3 happen to be two such licenses Trolltech is happy to license under, to such users.
Trolltech - the _owner_ - has the right to choose any license for distributing their code. _Once_ the code 'leaves their premises' under a certain license (say, GPL) - all further derivations will need to conform to that (and compatible) licenses.
So, there's a 'restrictive tree' as you move down - with Trolltech at the root - as a way of 'visualizing' this.
My take on the entire issue - 2 paise!
Best wishes, jaju