| Trolltech Home | Qt-interest Home | Recent Threads | All Threads | Author | Date | |
| All threads index page 6 | |
Curious, The licensing with QT can be so very confusing in some situations. And there is one thing that I'm not sure on.... I'm interested in developing a small in-house QT application using the open source version. The source code & executable wouldn't be distributed outside the company. Meaning, the application would only be used within the company and stay within the company only. Being that this is the case, if this application is not to be distributed outside the company, would a company need to purchase a QT license? I could understand that a license would be necessary if a QT application was going to be distrusted OUTSIDE of the company. But, if QT was used to make a small application that is only to be used privately within a company, does the company need to purchase a QT license? To me, the QT license seems quite vague on this. Some feedback would be great! Jason -- [ signature omitted ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jason wrote: > I could understand that a license would be necessary if a QT application was > going to be distrusted OUTSIDE of the company. But, if QT was used to make a > small application that is only to be used privately within a company, does > the company need to purchase a QT license? > > To me, the QT license seems quite vague on this. Its not that vague (No): http://trolltech.com/developer/knowledgebase/190 Anyway how would you make certain the source code wasn't distributed outside the company? When the receptionist asks for a copy of the source code under the GPL, you'd have to give it to them and they could give it to anyone they like. - -- Jonathan Brady -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHKFLCN8xRV9hCNWcRAmsLAJ9VO8w79HWzEvN06sDJoyExTxCYbwCfRWfn WBiD4p4cLZk8nY08j/dBfak= =CuVE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [ signature omitted ]
On Wednesday 31 October 2007 11:02:42 Jonathan Brady wrote: > Anyway how would you make certain the source code wasn't distributed > outside the company? When the receptionist asks for a copy of the > source code under the GPL, you'd have to give it to them and they could > give it to anyone they like. As it has been pointed out on many GPL discussion groups, while a possible scenario, unfortunately it is not really likely in the real world as your receptionist could get fired (not for the request per se, but who wants to be in bad relations with his employer ?). But I agree that the cleanest solution (especially on the long term) is to have a commercial license and no worries for either party. -- [ signature omitted ]
> Anyway how would you make certain the source code wasn't distributed > outside the company? When the receptionist asks for a copy of the > source code under the GPL, you'd have to give it to them and they could > give it to anyone they like. I don't like getting involved in these discussions, but I don't agree with this statement. For example, look at ZeroC's statement regarding Ice, another dual license GPL released project: http://zeroc.com/licensing.html In their case, entity refers to a "corporation", not an individual user. I think Trolltech makes that distinction in intent, as they are talking to an individual "user" and not a corporate entity. However, the GPL, as best as I can tell, just refers to "you", without regard to individual or other entity. So in my opinion it really boils down to the interpretation of the license. TT says "no you can't" and ZeroC says "yes you can (with certain limitations)", both for the same license. Only one of them can be right, no? I think the wording of TT's answer is vague enough that you could get away with it. If you are a corporation working on a project in house, then you haven't release it under ANY license. If and when you do, then that's another issue, but as long as it's internal it doesn't have to have a license. It's not been distributed to anyone, except perhaps other employees who are also working on it. In this case, it certainly seems like it fits the GPL definition just fine, as long as you interpret the entity the GPL is talking to as the corporation and not the individual users. And to note, I've had a Qt license for many years now and we do almost 100% solely internal development. -- [ signature omitted ]
Hi, [Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, nor do I work for Trolltech.] On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Jason wrote: > The licensing with QT can be so very confusing in some situations. And > there is one thing that I'm not sure on.... Well, licensing has a tendency to be confusing... ;-) > I'm interested in developing a small in-house QT application using the > open source version. The source code & executable wouldn't be distributed > outside the company. Meaning, the application would only be used within > the company and stay within the company only. This is what you often think with "small" applications. Think ahead! The application might prove useful enough to grow and then useful enough to distribute. It is my experience that some applications quickly develop a life of their own and can grow from about 100 lines of script code to 100 000 lines of C++ code within a few years and change from being a little personal helper to being one of the most sought after tools in an industry. Chances are it won't happen to your project, but don't bet on it. > Being that this is the > case, if this application is not to be distributed outside the company, > would a company need to purchase a QT license? Depends. First it depends on the interpretation of "distribute" in the GPL: while the FSF interprete it as meaning "from one private person to the next or outside a company", as far as I remember Trolltech (and many others) take it literally and it means "from any natural person to another regardless of work relationships". So you better ask Trolltech sales/legal whether this is still the case. (Side note: although the GPL itself has been proven to be fully court proof, this particular interpretation has not been clarified - and it probably never will, since many projects now switch to GPLv3 which makes this aspect very clear.) Second it depends on whether you mind distributing your own source under GPL (or a GPL-compatible license). If you don't: go ahead use the Open Source version of Qt. If you do: better be safe and get a commercial license before you start developing. If something important depends on this application I would recommend to buy a license anyway, you'll need good support and the commercial licenses come with nearly direct contact to the developers (at least for the tricky cases the support team involves the developers). Konrad
Attachment:
Attachment:
pgpsw4ihcHAoO.pgp
Attachment:
Attachment:
pgp70RaLTVAEM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Message 6 in thread
>
> This is what you often think with "small" applications. Think ahead! The
> application might prove useful enough to grow and then useful enough to
> distribute.
>
> It is my experience that some applications quickly develop a life of their
> own and can grow from about 100 lines of script code to 100 000 lines of
> C++ code within a few years and change from being a little personal helper
> to being one of the most sought after tools in an industry. Chances are it
> won't happen to your project, but don't bet on it.
>
>
Exactly! This is what happened to me. Fortunately, I had decided to
purchase the commercial license and built my application suite with it.
(http://www.gemacs.com/cem/index.php). It became a highly sought after
product in my industry (electromagnetic analysis) and generated
significant revenue for several years.
Six years later I sold my company (including this product) to my present
employer for 1,000X what that license cost.
YMMV, but even a very small company should have the funds to invest in a
Qt license. Feel free to tell them my story. That may convince them
that the risk is worth the potential reward.
Buddy Coffey
Applied Research Associates
Computational and Applied Electromagnetics
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 7 in thread
> Depends.
>
> First it depends on the interpretation of "distribute" in the GPL: while the
> FSF interprete it as meaning "from one private person to the next or
> outside a company", as far as I remember Trolltech (and many others) take
> it literally and it means "from any natural person to another regardless of
> work relationships". So you better ask Trolltech sales/legal whether this
> is still the case.
>
Internal distribution of software inside a corporate environment
requires no license. If it did, that would mean simply by working some
place you would have a perpetual license to any internal work based on
GPL code that has never been distributed outside of the company.
Distribution happens when the recipient requires a license to use the
software without committing copyright infringement. If I write a
script for Joe down the hall using some GPL perl modules on my machine,
the GPL is NOT activated. Joe doesn't have the right to now start
distributing that script on his personal website.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 8 in thread
Hi,
still IANAL.
Axiom 1: It does not need to be logical to be (il)legal.
On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Matt Chambers wrote:
> Internal distribution of software inside a corporate environment
> requires no license.
Wrong. You underestimate the reach of copyright. At least as far as I know
German and American copyright, it defines that every act of copying is
prohibited without license except for a few cases of "fair use"
(German: "Schrankenregelungen"). At least in the German Urheberrecht
distribution within a company is not fair use (every copying that you need
to execute a program is allowed, and backup is allowed too).
BTW: how do you explain "per seat" licenses in the corporate world if
distribution within a company needs no (additional) license?
The more interesting question is: how do you interprete the GPL in this
regard?
> If it did, that would mean simply by working some
> place you would have a perpetual license to any internal work based on
> GPL code that has never been distributed outside of the company.
In theory: yes.
Practicly you are in a kind of bind: on one side you probably have a work
contract that stipulates that you keep company internal "stuff" secret and
on the other hand you have a GPL that could be interpreted to force the
internal work based on GPL code to be under GPL too.
Under this strict interpretation of the GPL you could say that the company
has no legal way to give you the software and keep it secret too.
> Distribution happens when the recipient requires a license to use the
> software without committing copyright infringement.
A "recipient" always needs a license in order to not infringe a copyright
(except if the copyright has already expired).
> If I write a
> script for Joe down the hall using some GPL perl modules on my machine,
> the GPL is NOT activated. Joe doesn't have the right to now start
> distributing that script on his personal website.
I think this notion could be contested. If it ever came before a court I
would not want to bet on one outcome or the other.
But as I mentioned in my other mail: GPLv3 solves this problem by explicitly
defining distribution inside a company as outside its scope.
Konrad
Description: PGP signature