Qt-interest Archive, January 2008
License needs for split-dev platform with single target platform
Message 1 in thread
Hello all:
We have been happily using Qt for open source applications for several
years and now we would like to start using it for a commercial
application.
For now, our application will be deployed only on windows. That said,
a few developers would like to continue developing exclusively on
Linux or OSX. They are happy with their current development
environment and would like to continue using it. Because Qt is
cross-platform, this is really no big deal and should work out from
the technical side while giving developers the freedom to use whatever
tools they like.
The question I have though is: What do we need in terms of commercial
licenses to support a split development environment with a single
target platform?
We will have some developers developing exclusively on Windows. They
will be responsible for creating the final deployments. We will have
other developers working exclusively on OSX or Linux. All developers
will be sharing code through subversion and each developer will make
independent builds on their local machines.
I have heard 3 different opinions/options about what Qt commercial
licenses we would need for this.
Option 1: Licenses are tied to the developer and their platform.
Since each developer is developing exclusively on a single OS, each
developer only needs a license for the platform that they are using.
So a developer using OSX would need an OSX license, a developer on
Linux would need a Linux license, and a windows developer would need a
windows license.
Option 2: Same as option 1, but require each developer on OSX or Linux
to hold a 2-platform license with one for their development platform
and another for the deployment platform (Windows). The idea being
that although the developers are creating the code on OSX or Linux,
the final application will be deployed on Windows so they also need a
windows license since they are developing code destined for Windows.
Option 3: All developers are required to have a 3-platform development
license because although they only each work on a single platform, the
code they are creating will be used (ie. compiled by other developers)
on Linux, OSX, and Windows. Thus they need development license for all
3 platforms.
So now I am looking for some feedback from other users. Has anyone
setup a development environment like this? If so, what licensing
option did you have to use or is there another option entirely that
applies? I am trying to find a method that will allow the developers
to use the tool of their choice, but I have to admit that if option 1
is not the way it works, I may just have to tell everyone they have to
use Windows for all development.
Thanks for you help.
-Allen
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 2 in thread
My thoughts are an option 4... but a couple of things...
1) First, remember, code started on a opensource license must stay on an
opensource license...
2) Have you asked your sales person?
My forth option..
Each licensee, ie developer, requires a license for the code they are
developing and building against... This is similar to option 1
+ You need a build license with windows. Ie, the builder (could be one
of the devs, or could be someone else) will require a windows license.
So if you have 5 devs (1 win, 2 mac, 2 linux) + 1 builder you would need
2 win, 2 mac, and 2 linux
If your 1 win dev, was also the builder, then 1 win 2 mac and 2 linux
devs..
If one of your mac devs was your builder as well, then 1 win, 1 max+win,
1 max, and 2 linux..
Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allen Bierbaum [mailto:abierbaum@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 6:05 PM
> To: qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: License needs for split-dev platform with single target
platform
>
> Hello all:
>
> We have been happily using Qt for open source applications for several
> years and now we would like to start using it for a commercial
> application.
>
> For now, our application will be deployed only on windows. That said,
> a few developers would like to continue developing exclusively on
> Linux or OSX. They are happy with their current development
> environment and would like to continue using it. Because Qt is
> cross-platform, this is really no big deal and should work out from
> the technical side while giving developers the freedom to use whatever
> tools they like.
>
> The question I have though is: What do we need in terms of commercial
> licenses to support a split development environment with a single
> target platform?
>
> We will have some developers developing exclusively on Windows. They
> will be responsible for creating the final deployments. We will have
> other developers working exclusively on OSX or Linux. All developers
> will be sharing code through subversion and each developer will make
> independent builds on their local machines.
>
> I have heard 3 different opinions/options about what Qt commercial
> licenses we would need for this.
>
> Option 1: Licenses are tied to the developer and their platform.
> Since each developer is developing exclusively on a single OS, each
> developer only needs a license for the platform that they are using.
> So a developer using OSX would need an OSX license, a developer on
> Linux would need a Linux license, and a windows developer would need a
> windows license.
>
> Option 2: Same as option 1, but require each developer on OSX or Linux
> to hold a 2-platform license with one for their development platform
> and another for the deployment platform (Windows). The idea being
> that although the developers are creating the code on OSX or Linux,
> the final application will be deployed on Windows so they also need a
> windows license since they are developing code destined for Windows.
>
> Option 3: All developers are required to have a 3-platform development
> license because although they only each work on a single platform, the
> code they are creating will be used (ie. compiled by other developers)
> on Linux, OSX, and Windows. Thus they need development license for all
> 3 platforms.
>
> So now I am looking for some feedback from other users. Has anyone
> setup a development environment like this? If so, what licensing
> option did you have to use or is there another option entirely that
> applies? I am trying to find a method that will allow the developers
> to use the tool of their choice, but I have to admit that if option 1
> is not the way it works, I may just have to tell everyone they have to
> use Windows for all development.
>
> Thanks for you help.
>
> -Allen
>
> --
> To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body.
> List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 3 in thread
On Jan 15, 2008 9:09 PM, Scott Aron Bloom <Scott.Bloom@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My thoughts are an option 4... but a couple of things...
> 1) First, remember, code started on a opensource license must stay on an
> opensource license...
Understood. This is a new commercial project about to start which is
why I want to solve the license issues now.
> 2) Have you asked your sales person?
I have, and I am getting a bit of conflicting information. I was a
bit confused by the response, but I believe they are suggesting option
3. This is unfortunately because it will make us choose between
continuing to use Qt or continuing to develop cross-platform. To me
this seems very counter-intuitive.
This is one of the motivations of this e-mail. I wanted to find out
how other shops have dealt with this type of a development setup
without having to resort to 3-platform licenses for every developer.
>
> My forth option..
> Each licensee, ie developer, requires a license for the code they are
> developing and building against... This is similar to option 1
Agreed. This is actually what I was thinking with option 1, but I
guess I didn't every explicitly say the "building against" part.
Effectively, from my understanding of the commercial license, a
developer needs a license for any platform on which they may be doing
development (coding, building, debugging).
-Allen
> + You need a build license with windows. Ie, the builder (could be one
> of the devs, or could be someone else) will require a windows license.
>
> So if you have 5 devs (1 win, 2 mac, 2 linux) + 1 builder you would need
> 2 win, 2 mac, and 2 linux
>
> If your 1 win dev, was also the builder, then 1 win 2 mac and 2 linux
> devs..
>
> If one of your mac devs was your builder as well, then 1 win, 1 max+win,
> 1 max, and 2 linux..
>
> Scott
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Allen Bierbaum [mailto:abierbaum@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 6:05 PM
> > To: qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: License needs for split-dev platform with single target
> platform
> >
> > Hello all:
> >
> > We have been happily using Qt for open source applications for several
> > years and now we would like to start using it for a commercial
> > application.
> >
> > For now, our application will be deployed only on windows. That said,
> > a few developers would like to continue developing exclusively on
> > Linux or OSX. They are happy with their current development
> > environment and would like to continue using it. Because Qt is
> > cross-platform, this is really no big deal and should work out from
> > the technical side while giving developers the freedom to use whatever
> > tools they like.
> >
> > The question I have though is: What do we need in terms of commercial
> > licenses to support a split development environment with a single
> > target platform?
> >
> > We will have some developers developing exclusively on Windows. They
> > will be responsible for creating the final deployments. We will have
> > other developers working exclusively on OSX or Linux. All developers
> > will be sharing code through subversion and each developer will make
> > independent builds on their local machines.
> >
> > I have heard 3 different opinions/options about what Qt commercial
> > licenses we would need for this.
> >
> > Option 1: Licenses are tied to the developer and their platform.
> > Since each developer is developing exclusively on a single OS, each
> > developer only needs a license for the platform that they are using.
> > So a developer using OSX would need an OSX license, a developer on
> > Linux would need a Linux license, and a windows developer would need a
> > windows license.
> >
> > Option 2: Same as option 1, but require each developer on OSX or Linux
> > to hold a 2-platform license with one for their development platform
> > and another for the deployment platform (Windows). The idea being
> > that although the developers are creating the code on OSX or Linux,
> > the final application will be deployed on Windows so they also need a
> > windows license since they are developing code destined for Windows.
> >
> > Option 3: All developers are required to have a 3-platform development
> > license because although they only each work on a single platform, the
> > code they are creating will be used (ie. compiled by other developers)
> > on Linux, OSX, and Windows. Thus they need development license for all
> > 3 platforms.
> >
> > So now I am looking for some feedback from other users. Has anyone
> > setup a development environment like this? If so, what licensing
> > option did you have to use or is there another option entirely that
> > applies? I am trying to find a method that will allow the developers
> > to use the tool of their choice, but I have to admit that if option 1
> > is not the way it works, I may just have to tell everyone they have to
> > use Windows for all development.
> >
> > Thanks for you help.
> >
> > -Allen
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> > "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body.
> > List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/
>
>
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 4 in thread
As a consultant... I can tell you, I have never seen a shop using method
#3...
Usually most devs work on more then 1 platform however... But not a
requirement...
That said... I think you are well within your bounds to only purchase a
license based on what each dev actually uses, not what others around
them are using.
Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allen Bierbaum [mailto:abierbaum@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 5:16 AM
> To: Scott Aron Bloom
> Cc: qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: License needs for split-dev platform with single target
> platform
>
> On Jan 15, 2008 9:09 PM, Scott Aron Bloom <Scott.Bloom@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > My thoughts are an option 4... but a couple of things...
> > 1) First, remember, code started on a opensource license must stay
on an
> > opensource license...
>
> Understood. This is a new commercial project about to start which is
> why I want to solve the license issues now.
>
> > 2) Have you asked your sales person?
>
> I have, and I am getting a bit of conflicting information. I was a
> bit confused by the response, but I believe they are suggesting option
> 3. This is unfortunately because it will make us choose between
> continuing to use Qt or continuing to develop cross-platform. To me
> this seems very counter-intuitive.
>
> This is one of the motivations of this e-mail. I wanted to find out
> how other shops have dealt with this type of a development setup
> without having to resort to 3-platform licenses for every developer.
>
> >
> > My forth option..
> > Each licensee, ie developer, requires a license for the code they
are
> > developing and building against... This is similar to option 1
>
> Agreed. This is actually what I was thinking with option 1, but I
> guess I didn't every explicitly say the "building against" part.
>
> Effectively, from my understanding of the commercial license, a
> developer needs a license for any platform on which they may be doing
> development (coding, building, debugging).
>
> -Allen
>
>
> > + You need a build license with windows. Ie, the builder (could be
one
> > of the devs, or could be someone else) will require a windows
license.
> >
> > So if you have 5 devs (1 win, 2 mac, 2 linux) + 1 builder you would
need
> > 2 win, 2 mac, and 2 linux
> >
> > If your 1 win dev, was also the builder, then 1 win 2 mac and 2
linux
> > devs..
> >
> > If one of your mac devs was your builder as well, then 1 win, 1
max+win,
> > 1 max, and 2 linux..
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Allen Bierbaum [mailto:abierbaum@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 6:05 PM
> > > To: qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: License needs for split-dev platform with single target
> > platform
> > >
> > > Hello all:
> > >
> > > We have been happily using Qt for open source applications for
several
> > > years and now we would like to start using it for a commercial
> > > application.
> > >
> > > For now, our application will be deployed only on windows. That
said,
> > > a few developers would like to continue developing exclusively on
> > > Linux or OSX. They are happy with their current development
> > > environment and would like to continue using it. Because Qt is
> > > cross-platform, this is really no big deal and should work out
from
> > > the technical side while giving developers the freedom to use
whatever
> > > tools they like.
> > >
> > > The question I have though is: What do we need in terms of
commercial
> > > licenses to support a split development environment with a single
> > > target platform?
> > >
> > > We will have some developers developing exclusively on Windows.
They
> > > will be responsible for creating the final deployments. We will
have
> > > other developers working exclusively on OSX or Linux. All
developers
> > > will be sharing code through subversion and each developer will
make
> > > independent builds on their local machines.
> > >
> > > I have heard 3 different opinions/options about what Qt commercial
> > > licenses we would need for this.
> > >
> > > Option 1: Licenses are tied to the developer and their platform.
> > > Since each developer is developing exclusively on a single OS,
each
> > > developer only needs a license for the platform that they are
using.
> > > So a developer using OSX would need an OSX license, a developer on
> > > Linux would need a Linux license, and a windows developer would
need a
> > > windows license.
> > >
> > > Option 2: Same as option 1, but require each developer on OSX or
Linux
> > > to hold a 2-platform license with one for their development
platform
> > > and another for the deployment platform (Windows). The idea being
> > > that although the developers are creating the code on OSX or
Linux,
> > > the final application will be deployed on Windows so they also
need a
> > > windows license since they are developing code destined for
Windows.
> > >
> > > Option 3: All developers are required to have a 3-platform
development
> > > license because although they only each work on a single platform,
the
> > > code they are creating will be used (ie. compiled by other
developers)
> > > on Linux, OSX, and Windows. Thus they need development license for
all
> > > 3 platforms.
> > >
> > > So now I am looking for some feedback from other users. Has
anyone
> > > setup a development environment like this? If so, what licensing
> > > option did you have to use or is there another option entirely
that
> > > applies? I am trying to find a method that will allow the
developers
> > > to use the tool of their choice, but I have to admit that if
option 1
> > > is not the way it works, I may just have to tell everyone they
have to
> > > use Windows for all development.
> > >
> > > Thanks for you help.
> > >
> > > -Allen
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with
> > > "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body.
> > > List archive and information:
http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/
> >
> >
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 5 in thread
Can anyone else verify this is how it works. It differs from the
information that I am hearing from our sales contact and I wanted to
get a second opinion before I go any further.
Thanks,
Allen
On Jan 16, 2008 9:34 AM, Scott Aron Bloom <Scott.Bloom@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As a consultant... I can tell you, I have never seen a shop using method
> #3...
>
> Usually most devs work on more then 1 platform however... But not a
> requirement...
>
> That said... I think you are well within your bounds to only purchase a
> license based on what each dev actually uses, not what others around
> them are using.
>
> Scott
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Allen Bierbaum [mailto:abierbaum@xxxxxxxxx]
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 5:16 AM
> > To: Scott Aron Bloom
> > Cc: qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: License needs for split-dev platform with single target
> > platform
> >
> > On Jan 15, 2008 9:09 PM, Scott Aron Bloom <Scott.Bloom@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > My thoughts are an option 4... but a couple of things...
> > > 1) First, remember, code started on a opensource license must stay
> on an
> > > opensource license...
> >
> > Understood. This is a new commercial project about to start which is
> > why I want to solve the license issues now.
> >
> > > 2) Have you asked your sales person?
> >
> > I have, and I am getting a bit of conflicting information. I was a
> > bit confused by the response, but I believe they are suggesting option
> > 3. This is unfortunately because it will make us choose between
> > continuing to use Qt or continuing to develop cross-platform. To me
> > this seems very counter-intuitive.
> >
> > This is one of the motivations of this e-mail. I wanted to find out
> > how other shops have dealt with this type of a development setup
> > without having to resort to 3-platform licenses for every developer.
> >
> > >
> > > My forth option..
> > > Each licensee, ie developer, requires a license for the code they
> are
> > > developing and building against... This is similar to option 1
> >
> > Agreed. This is actually what I was thinking with option 1, but I
> > guess I didn't every explicitly say the "building against" part.
> >
> > Effectively, from my understanding of the commercial license, a
> > developer needs a license for any platform on which they may be doing
> > development (coding, building, debugging).
> >
> > -Allen
> >
> >
> > > + You need a build license with windows. Ie, the builder (could be
> one
> > > of the devs, or could be someone else) will require a windows
> license.
> > >
> > > So if you have 5 devs (1 win, 2 mac, 2 linux) + 1 builder you would
> need
> > > 2 win, 2 mac, and 2 linux
> > >
> > > If your 1 win dev, was also the builder, then 1 win 2 mac and 2
> linux
> > > devs..
> > >
> > > If one of your mac devs was your builder as well, then 1 win, 1
> max+win,
> > > 1 max, and 2 linux..
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Allen Bierbaum [mailto:abierbaum@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 6:05 PM
> > > > To: qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: License needs for split-dev platform with single target
> > > platform
> > > >
> > > > Hello all:
> > > >
> > > > We have been happily using Qt for open source applications for
> several
> > > > years and now we would like to start using it for a commercial
> > > > application.
> > > >
> > > > For now, our application will be deployed only on windows. That
> said,
> > > > a few developers would like to continue developing exclusively on
> > > > Linux or OSX. They are happy with their current development
> > > > environment and would like to continue using it. Because Qt is
> > > > cross-platform, this is really no big deal and should work out
> from
> > > > the technical side while giving developers the freedom to use
> whatever
> > > > tools they like.
> > > >
> > > > The question I have though is: What do we need in terms of
> commercial
> > > > licenses to support a split development environment with a single
> > > > target platform?
> > > >
> > > > We will have some developers developing exclusively on Windows.
> They
> > > > will be responsible for creating the final deployments. We will
> have
> > > > other developers working exclusively on OSX or Linux. All
> developers
> > > > will be sharing code through subversion and each developer will
> make
> > > > independent builds on their local machines.
> > > >
> > > > I have heard 3 different opinions/options about what Qt commercial
> > > > licenses we would need for this.
> > > >
> > > > Option 1: Licenses are tied to the developer and their platform.
> > > > Since each developer is developing exclusively on a single OS,
> each
> > > > developer only needs a license for the platform that they are
> using.
> > > > So a developer using OSX would need an OSX license, a developer on
> > > > Linux would need a Linux license, and a windows developer would
> need a
> > > > windows license.
> > > >
> > > > Option 2: Same as option 1, but require each developer on OSX or
> Linux
> > > > to hold a 2-platform license with one for their development
> platform
> > > > and another for the deployment platform (Windows). The idea being
> > > > that although the developers are creating the code on OSX or
> Linux,
> > > > the final application will be deployed on Windows so they also
> need a
> > > > windows license since they are developing code destined for
> Windows.
> > > >
> > > > Option 3: All developers are required to have a 3-platform
> development
> > > > license because although they only each work on a single platform,
> the
> > > > code they are creating will be used (ie. compiled by other
> developers)
> > > > on Linux, OSX, and Windows. Thus they need development license for
> all
> > > > 3 platforms.
> > > >
> > > > So now I am looking for some feedback from other users. Has
> anyone
> > > > setup a development environment like this? If so, what licensing
> > > > option did you have to use or is there another option entirely
> that
> > > > applies? I am trying to find a method that will allow the
> developers
> > > > to use the tool of their choice, but I have to admit that if
> option 1
> > > > is not the way it works, I may just have to tell everyone they
> have to
> > > > use Windows for all development.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for you help.
> > > >
> > > > -Allen
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> with
> > > > "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body.
> > > > List archive and information:
> http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body.
> List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/
>
>
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 6 in thread
You only need licenses for the actual platforms your developers use. (If they now and then switch to another platform just to see if it builds, they'll need multi-platform licenses)
Is the sales contact you have sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxx? Normally they should know these things.
Cheers,
Peter
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Allen Bierbaum [mailto:abierbaum@xxxxxxxxx]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Januar 2008 17:57
> An: Scott Aron Bloom
> Cc: qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: Re: License needs for split-dev platform with single
> target platform
>
> Can anyone else verify this is how it works. It differs from the
> information that I am hearing from our sales contact and I wanted to
> get a second opinion before I go any further.
>
> Thanks,
> Allen
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 7 in thread
Hi,
> You only need licenses for the actual platforms your developers use. (If they now and then switch to another platform just to see if it builds, they'll need multi-platform licenses)
I'm speaking for myself only and this is certainly *not* an official Trolltech
statement, but yes, the above seems correct to me.
The relevant FAQ is unfortunately not very clear:
http://trolltech.com/developer/knowledgebase/faq.2006-08-28.4978109479
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 8 in thread
Hi,
I wrote:
>> You only need licenses for the actual platforms your developers use.
>> (If they now and then switch to another platform just to see if it
>> builds, they'll need multi-platform licenses)
>
> I'm speaking for myself only and this is certainly *not* an official
> Trolltech statement, but yes, the above seems correct to me.
After asking around, I'm not certain the above unofficial statement is
correct... I recommend you ask sales at Trolltech. They know better.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 9 in thread
Bernard:
Thanks for the clear explanation. This makes sense. I admit I wish
it was a bit more flexible, but at least I see how it works and that
Option 3 (trio packs) are not needed.
I hesitate to ask this, but to throw one other wrench into the mix,
how does Trolltech licensing deal with automated build slaves (ex:
build/test machine for continuous integration and automated nightly
deployment builds)? In this case there is really no developer at all
and often times it uses a public build account like "buildmaster" or
"testrunner" so there isn't even a developer account associated with
it. Does this get covered by the license of whatever developer setup
the build or does the build have to run on a developer workstation or
is there some other method of handling this?
-Allen
On Jan 21, 2008 2:40 AM, Bernard Falise <bfalise@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Véronique and Allen,
>
> I checked with legal and product management, and the answer (i.e.
> licensing terms) is very clearly oriented towards the developer work
> itself.
>
> The strict minimum is Option 1, with making sure the developers who are
> building, & debugging, also have windows (and need duo pack if they dev
> on another platform). But this is VERY UNFLEXIBLE.
> For instance, if you only have one license for windows for the one
> building, and this guy gets sick, then you have no license to build and
> debug, because the license is for the developer, and only him.
>
> What we recommend is clearly OPTION 2: If the developers are all working
> on single platforms, and some building for Windows, we do recommend duo
> pack with their dev platforms + windows, which is basically option 2
> described on the attached mail. For the ones developing on win, they
> will need single pack windows.
>
> The Option 3, trio packs, will give them the flexibility to change of
> development platform if they want, which is less allowed with option 2
> (only between the platforms they have a license for).
>
> BUT as you mentioned Allen somewhere, a very important point is that it
> is normally not allowed to start a project in open source, and then
> convert it in commercial project.
>
> THIS is a violation of our licensing terms.
>
> However, what we can do in such cases, in order to allow you to comply,
> is to propose the customer to retroactively buy the commercial licensing
> terms from the moment the application was started, and for the Number of
> developers who were involved.
>
> I hope this helps, and am looking forward to getting your feedback,
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Bernard Falise
> Regional Sales Manager
> TROLLTECH ASA
> Tel : +47 21 60 48 27
> e-mail : bfalise@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allen Bierbaum [mailto:abierbaum@xxxxxxxxx]
>
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 5:57 PM
> To: Scott Aron Bloom
> Cc: qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: License needs for split-dev platform with single target
> platform
>
> Can anyone else verify this is how it works. It differs from the
> information that I am hearing from our sales contact and I wanted to
> get a second opinion before I go any further.
>
> Thanks,
> Allen
>
> On Jan 16, 2008 9:34 AM, Scott Aron Bloom <Scott.Bloom@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > As a consultant... I can tell you, I have never seen a shop using
> method
> > #3...
> >
> > Usually most devs work on more then 1 platform however... But not a
> > requirement...
> >
> > That said... I think you are well within your bounds to only purchase
> a
> > license based on what each dev actually uses, not what others around
> > them are using.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Allen Bierbaum [mailto:abierbaum@xxxxxxxxx]
> >
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 5:16 AM
> > > To: Scott Aron Bloom
> > > Cc: qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: License needs for split-dev platform with single target
> > > platform
> > >
> > > On Jan 15, 2008 9:09 PM, Scott Aron Bloom <Scott.Bloom@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > > > My thoughts are an option 4... but a couple of things...
> > > > 1) First, remember, code started on a opensource license must stay
> > on an
> > > > opensource license...
> > >
> > > Understood. This is a new commercial project about to start which
> is
> > > why I want to solve the license issues now.
> > >
> > > > 2) Have you asked your sales person?
> > >
> > > I have, and I am getting a bit of conflicting information. I was a
> > > bit confused by the response, but I believe they are suggesting
> option
> > > 3. This is unfortunately because it will make us choose between
> > > continuing to use Qt or continuing to develop cross-platform. To me
> > > this seems very counter-intuitive.
> > >
> > > This is one of the motivations of this e-mail. I wanted to find out
> > > how other shops have dealt with this type of a development setup
> > > without having to resort to 3-platform licenses for every developer.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > My forth option..
> > > > Each licensee, ie developer, requires a license for the code they
> > are
> > > > developing and building against... This is similar to option 1
> > >
> > > Agreed. This is actually what I was thinking with option 1, but I
> > > guess I didn't every explicitly say the "building against" part.
> > >
> > > Effectively, from my understanding of the commercial license, a
> > > developer needs a license for any platform on which they may be
> doing
> > > development (coding, building, debugging).
> > >
> > > -Allen
> > >
> > >
> > > > + You need a build license with windows. Ie, the builder (could
> be
> > one
> > > > of the devs, or could be someone else) will require a windows
> > license.
> > > >
> > > > So if you have 5 devs (1 win, 2 mac, 2 linux) + 1 builder you
> would
> > need
> > > > 2 win, 2 mac, and 2 linux
> > > >
> > > > If your 1 win dev, was also the builder, then 1 win 2 mac and 2
> > linux
> > > > devs..
> > > >
> > > > If one of your mac devs was your builder as well, then 1 win, 1
> > max+win,
> > > > 1 max, and 2 linux..
> > > >
> > > > Scott
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Allen Bierbaum [mailto:abierbaum@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 6:05 PM
> > > > > To: qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: License needs for split-dev platform with single target
> > > > platform
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello all:
> > > > >
> > > > > We have been happily using Qt for open source applications for
> > several
> > > > > years and now we would like to start using it for a commercial
> > > > > application.
> > > > >
> > > > > For now, our application will be deployed only on windows. That
> > said,
> > > > > a few developers would like to continue developing exclusively
> on
> > > > > Linux or OSX. They are happy with their current development
> > > > > environment and would like to continue using it. Because Qt is
> > > > > cross-platform, this is really no big deal and should work out
> > from
> > > > > the technical side while giving developers the freedom to use
> > whatever
> > > > > tools they like.
> > > > >
> > > > > The question I have though is: What do we need in terms of
> > commercial
> > > > > licenses to support a split development environment with a
> single
> > > > > target platform?
> > > > >
> > > > > We will have some developers developing exclusively on Windows.
> > They
> > > > > will be responsible for creating the final deployments. We will
> > have
> > > > > other developers working exclusively on OSX or Linux. All
> > developers
> > > > > will be sharing code through subversion and each developer will
> > make
> > > > > independent builds on their local machines.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have heard 3 different opinions/options about what Qt
> commercial
> > > > > licenses we would need for this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Option 1: Licenses are tied to the developer and their platform.
> > > > > Since each developer is developing exclusively on a single OS,
> > each
> > > > > developer only needs a license for the platform that they are
> > using.
> > > > > So a developer using OSX would need an OSX license, a developer
> on
> > > > > Linux would need a Linux license, and a windows developer would
> > need a
> > > > > windows license.
> > > > >
> > > > > Option 2: Same as option 1, but require each developer on OSX or
> > Linux
> > > > > to hold a 2-platform license with one for their development
> > platform
> > > > > and another for the deployment platform (Windows). The idea
> being
> > > > > that although the developers are creating the code on OSX or
> > Linux,
> > > > > the final application will be deployed on Windows so they also
> > need a
> > > > > windows license since they are developing code destined for
> > Windows.
> > > > >
> > > > > Option 3: All developers are required to have a 3-platform
> > development
> > > > > license because although they only each work on a single
> platform,
> > the
> > > > > code they are creating will be used (ie. compiled by other
> > developers)
> > > > > on Linux, OSX, and Windows. Thus they need development license
> for
> > all
> > > > > 3 platforms.
> > > > >
> > > > > So now I am looking for some feedback from other users. Has
> > anyone
> > > > > setup a development environment like this? If so, what
> licensing
> > > > > option did you have to use or is there another option entirely
> > that
> > > > > applies? I am trying to find a method that will allow the
> > developers
> > > > > to use the tool of their choice, but I have to admit that if
> > option 1
> > > > > is not the way it works, I may just have to tell everyone they
> > have to
> > > > > use Windows for all development.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for you help.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Allen
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > To unsubscribe - send a mail to
> qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > with
> > > > > "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body.
> > > > > List archive and information:
> > http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body.
> > List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/
> >
> >
>
> --
> To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body.
> List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/
>
>
>
>
>
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 10 in thread
Hi,
Option 1 is the correct one. A developer only needs the license he/she will
use personally.
But you really should talk to Trolltech sales people about this.
Bo.
On onsdag den 16. Januar 2008, Allen Bierbaum wrote:
> Hello all:
>
> We have been happily using Qt for open source applications for several
> years and now we would like to start using it for a commercial
> application.
>
> For now, our application will be deployed only on windows. That said,
> a few developers would like to continue developing exclusively on
> Linux or OSX. They are happy with their current development
> environment and would like to continue using it. Because Qt is
> cross-platform, this is really no big deal and should work out from
> the technical side while giving developers the freedom to use whatever
> tools they like.
>
> The question I have though is: What do we need in terms of commercial
> licenses to support a split development environment with a single
> target platform?
>
> We will have some developers developing exclusively on Windows. They
> will be responsible for creating the final deployments. We will have
> other developers working exclusively on OSX or Linux. All developers
> will be sharing code through subversion and each developer will make
> independent builds on their local machines.
>
> I have heard 3 different opinions/options about what Qt commercial
> licenses we would need for this.
>
> Option 1: Licenses are tied to the developer and their platform.
> Since each developer is developing exclusively on a single OS, each
> developer only needs a license for the platform that they are using.
> So a developer using OSX would need an OSX license, a developer on
> Linux would need a Linux license, and a windows developer would need a
> windows license.
>
> Option 2: Same as option 1, but require each developer on OSX or Linux
> to hold a 2-platform license with one for their development platform
> and another for the deployment platform (Windows). The idea being
> that although the developers are creating the code on OSX or Linux,
> the final application will be deployed on Windows so they also need a
> windows license since they are developing code destined for Windows.
>
> Option 3: All developers are required to have a 3-platform development
> license because although they only each work on a single platform, the
> code they are creating will be used (ie. compiled by other developers)
> on Linux, OSX, and Windows. Thus they need development license for all
> 3 platforms.
>
> So now I am looking for some feedback from other users. Has anyone
> setup a development environment like this? If so, what licensing
> option did you have to use or is there another option entirely that
> applies? I am trying to find a method that will allow the developers
> to use the tool of their choice, but I have to admit that if option 1
> is not the way it works, I may just have to tell everyone they have to
> use Windows for all development.
>
> Thanks for you help.
>
> -Allen
>
> --
> To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body. List archive and information:
> http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 11 in thread
I checked with legal and product management, and the answer (i.e.
licensing terms) is very clearly oriented towards the developer work
itself.
The strict minimum is Option 1, with making sure the developers who are
building, & debugging, also have windows (and need duo pack if they dev
on another platform). But this is VERY UNFLEXIBLE.
For instance, if you only have one license for windows for the one
building, and this guy gets sick, then you have no license to build and
debug, because the license is for the developer, and only him.
What we recommend is clearly OPTION 2: If the developers are all working
on single platforms, and some building for Windows, we do recommend duo
pack with their dev platforms + windows, which is basically option 2
described on the attached mail. For the ones developing on win, they
will need single pack windows.
The Option 3, trio packs, will give them the flexibility to change of
development platform if they want, which is less allowed with option 2
(only between the platforms they have a license for).
BUT as you mentioned Allen somewhere, a very important point is that it
is normally not allowed to start a project in open source, and then
convert it in commercial project.
THIS is a violation of our licensing terms.
However, what we can do in such cases, in order to allow you to comply,
is to propose the customer to retroactively buy the commercial licensing
terms from the moment the application was started, and for the Number of
developers who were involved.
I hope this helps, and am looking forward to getting your feedback,
Best Regards,
Bernard Falise
Regional Sales Manager
TROLLTECH ASA
Tel : +47 21 60 48 27
e-mail : bfalise@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Bierbaum [mailto:abierbaum@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 5:57 PM
To: Scott Aron Bloom
Cc: qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: License needs for split-dev platform with single target
platform
Can anyone else verify this is how it works. It differs from the
information that I am hearing from our sales contact and I wanted to
get a second opinion before I go any further.
Thanks,
Allen
On Jan 16, 2008 9:34 AM, Scott Aron Bloom <Scott.Bloom@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> As a consultant... I can tell you, I have never seen a shop using
method
> #3...
>
> Usually most devs work on more then 1 platform however... But not a
> requirement...
>
> That said... I think you are well within your bounds to only purchase
a
> license based on what each dev actually uses, not what others around
> them are using.
>
> Scott
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Allen Bierbaum [mailto:abierbaum@xxxxxxxxx]
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 5:16 AM
> > To: Scott Aron Bloom
> > Cc: qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: License needs for split-dev platform with single target
> > platform
> >
> > On Jan 15, 2008 9:09 PM, Scott Aron Bloom <Scott.Bloom@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > My thoughts are an option 4... but a couple of things...
> > > 1) First, remember, code started on a opensource license must stay
> on an
> > > opensource license...
> >
> > Understood. This is a new commercial project about to start which
is
> > why I want to solve the license issues now.
> >
> > > 2) Have you asked your sales person?
> >
> > I have, and I am getting a bit of conflicting information. I was a
> > bit confused by the response, but I believe they are suggesting
option
> > 3. This is unfortunately because it will make us choose between
> > continuing to use Qt or continuing to develop cross-platform. To me
> > this seems very counter-intuitive.
> >
> > This is one of the motivations of this e-mail. I wanted to find out
> > how other shops have dealt with this type of a development setup
> > without having to resort to 3-platform licenses for every developer.
> >
> > >
> > > My forth option..
> > > Each licensee, ie developer, requires a license for the code they
> are
> > > developing and building against... This is similar to option 1
> >
> > Agreed. This is actually what I was thinking with option 1, but I
> > guess I didn't every explicitly say the "building against" part.
> >
> > Effectively, from my understanding of the commercial license, a
> > developer needs a license for any platform on which they may be
doing
> > development (coding, building, debugging).
> >
> > -Allen
> >
> >
> > > + You need a build license with windows. Ie, the builder (could
be
> one
> > > of the devs, or could be someone else) will require a windows
> license.
> > >
> > > So if you have 5 devs (1 win, 2 mac, 2 linux) + 1 builder you
would
> need
> > > 2 win, 2 mac, and 2 linux
> > >
> > > If your 1 win dev, was also the builder, then 1 win 2 mac and 2
> linux
> > > devs..
> > >
> > > If one of your mac devs was your builder as well, then 1 win, 1
> max+win,
> > > 1 max, and 2 linux..
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Allen Bierbaum [mailto:abierbaum@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 6:05 PM
> > > > To: qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: License needs for split-dev platform with single target
> > > platform
> > > >
> > > > Hello all:
> > > >
> > > > We have been happily using Qt for open source applications for
> several
> > > > years and now we would like to start using it for a commercial
> > > > application.
> > > >
> > > > For now, our application will be deployed only on windows. That
> said,
> > > > a few developers would like to continue developing exclusively
on
> > > > Linux or OSX. They are happy with their current development
> > > > environment and would like to continue using it. Because Qt is
> > > > cross-platform, this is really no big deal and should work out
> from
> > > > the technical side while giving developers the freedom to use
> whatever
> > > > tools they like.
> > > >
> > > > The question I have though is: What do we need in terms of
> commercial
> > > > licenses to support a split development environment with a
single
> > > > target platform?
> > > >
> > > > We will have some developers developing exclusively on Windows.
> They
> > > > will be responsible for creating the final deployments. We will
> have
> > > > other developers working exclusively on OSX or Linux. All
> developers
> > > > will be sharing code through subversion and each developer will
> make
> > > > independent builds on their local machines.
> > > >
> > > > I have heard 3 different opinions/options about what Qt
commercial
> > > > licenses we would need for this.
> > > >
> > > > Option 1: Licenses are tied to the developer and their platform.
> > > > Since each developer is developing exclusively on a single OS,
> each
> > > > developer only needs a license for the platform that they are
> using.
> > > > So a developer using OSX would need an OSX license, a developer
on
> > > > Linux would need a Linux license, and a windows developer would
> need a
> > > > windows license.
> > > >
> > > > Option 2: Same as option 1, but require each developer on OSX or
> Linux
> > > > to hold a 2-platform license with one for their development
> platform
> > > > and another for the deployment platform (Windows). The idea
being
> > > > that although the developers are creating the code on OSX or
> Linux,
> > > > the final application will be deployed on Windows so they also
> need a
> > > > windows license since they are developing code destined for
> Windows.
> > > >
> > > > Option 3: All developers are required to have a 3-platform
> development
> > > > license because although they only each work on a single
platform,
> the
> > > > code they are creating will be used (ie. compiled by other
> developers)
> > > > on Linux, OSX, and Windows. Thus they need development license
for
> all
> > > > 3 platforms.
> > > >
> > > > So now I am looking for some feedback from other users. Has
> anyone
> > > > setup a development environment like this? If so, what
licensing
> > > > option did you have to use or is there another option entirely
> that
> > > > applies? I am trying to find a method that will allow the
> developers
> > > > to use the tool of their choice, but I have to admit that if
> option 1
> > > > is not the way it works, I may just have to tell everyone they
> have to
> > > > use Windows for all development.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for you help.
> > > >
> > > > -Allen
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > To unsubscribe - send a mail to
qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> with
> > > > "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body.
> > > > List archive and information:
> http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the subject or the body.
> List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/
>
>
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 12 in thread
Well, I'd like to suggest that Trolltech reconsider their licensing policy
once more :-)
The intention behind such strict platform fixations is clear: Flushing more
revenues in Trolltech's cash desk (which is perfectly OK). I only don't
think that this will work out in a scenario as described. I doubt that any
software company is willing to spend additional license costs just to
satisfy the personal platform preferences of their developers. So the
result will most likely be that all developers in the project will be
forced to develop on the the same single platform only: No additional
revenues for Trolltech but only more or less annoyed developers instead.
Best regards,
Bernd
On Monday 21 January 2008, Bernard Falise wrote:
> I checked with legal and product management, and the answer (i.e.
> licensing terms) is very clearly oriented towards the developer work
> itself.
>
> The strict minimum is Option 1, with making sure the developers who are
> building, & debugging, also have windows (and need duo pack if they dev
> on another platform). But this is VERY UNFLEXIBLE.
> For instance, if you only have one license for windows for the one
> building, and this guy gets sick, then you have no license to build and
> debug, because the license is for the developer, and only him.
>
> What we recommend is clearly OPTION 2: If the developers are all working
>
> on single platforms, and some building for Windows, we do recommend duo
> pack with their dev platforms + windows, which is basically option 2
> described on the attached mail. For the ones developing on win, they
> will need single pack windows.
>
> The Option 3, trio packs, will give them the flexibility to change of
> development platform if they want, which is less allowed with option 2
> (only between the platforms they have a license for).
>
> BUT as you mentioned Allen somewhere, a very important point is that it
> is normally not allowed to start a project in open source, and then
> convert it in commercial project.
>
> THIS is a violation of our licensing terms.
>
> However, what we can do in such cases, in order to allow you to comply,
> is to propose the customer to retroactively buy the commercial licensing
>
> terms from the moment the application was started, and for the Number of
>
> developers who were involved.
>
> I hope this helps, and am looking forward to getting your feedback,
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Bernard Falise
> Regional Sales Manager
> TROLLTECH ASA
> Tel : +47 21 60 48 27
> e-mail : bfalise@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 13 in thread
I couldn't agree more...
TT should consider a formal bulk license approach... Ie, for the 1-5
total seats (maybe more...) keep it the same...
However, after a point, TT should consider allowed companies decide what
platforms to allocate the licenses... If I have 10 QT developers... and
I want to deploy on multiple platforms..... Why should I lock my self
in? As the price of a QT license keeps going up... people are going to
look for ways to cut the number of licenses.. NOT grow them...
Again... as a consultant, I have worked in a bunch of QT based design
houses... And the multi-platform ones, are constantly looking at ways of
staying legal but minimizing the license count, usually by limiting the
number of developers.
IMHO, it would be great, if TT would look at a floating license system.
Similar to what some of "pay for" compilers do, like Sun's compilers..
You buy X number of licenses, and the do cost a bit more per license
(about 10%) but any X developers can use it... In TT's case, say
limiting MOC, UIC, QMAKE, linguist etc... to X users at a time...
Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernd Brandstetter [mailto:bbrand@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 11:01 AM
> To: qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: License needs for split-dev platform with single target
> platform
>
> Well, I'd like to suggest that Trolltech reconsider their licensing
policy
> once more :-)
>
> The intention behind such strict platform fixations is clear: Flushing
> more
> revenues in Trolltech's cash desk (which is perfectly OK). I only
don't
> think that this will work out in a scenario as described. I doubt that
any
> software company is willing to spend additional license costs just to
> satisfy the personal platform preferences of their developers. So the
> result will most likely be that all developers in the project will be
> forced to develop on the the same single platform only: No additional
> revenues for Trolltech but only more or less annoyed developers
instead.
>
> Best regards,
> Bernd
>
>
> On Monday 21 January 2008, Bernard Falise wrote:
> > I checked with legal and product management, and the answer (i.e.
> > licensing terms) is very clearly oriented towards the developer work
> > itself.
> >
> > The strict minimum is Option 1, with making sure the developers who
are
> > building, & debugging, also have windows (and need duo pack if they
dev
> > on another platform). But this is VERY UNFLEXIBLE.
> > For instance, if you only have one license for windows for the one
> > building, and this guy gets sick, then you have no license to build
and
> > debug, because the license is for the developer, and only him.
> >
> > What we recommend is clearly OPTION 2: If the developers are all
working
> >
> > on single platforms, and some building for Windows, we do recommend
duo
> > pack with their dev platforms + windows, which is basically option 2
> > described on the attached mail. For the ones developing on win, they
> > will need single pack windows.
> >
> > The Option 3, trio packs, will give them the flexibility to change
of
> > development platform if they want, which is less allowed with option
2
> > (only between the platforms they have a license for).
> >
> > BUT as you mentioned Allen somewhere, a very important point is that
it
> > is normally not allowed to start a project in open source, and then
> > convert it in commercial project.
> >
> > THIS is a violation of our licensing terms.
> >
> > However, what we can do in such cases, in order to allow you to
comply,
> > is to propose the customer to retroactively buy the commercial
licensing
> >
> > terms from the moment the application was started, and for the
Number of
> >
> > developers who were involved.
> >
> > I hope this helps, and am looking forward to getting your feedback,
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Bernard Falise
> > Regional Sales Manager
> > TROLLTECH ASA
> > Tel : +47 21 60 48 27
> > e-mail : bfalise@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> --
> To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body.
> List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/
--
[ signature omitted ]
