Qt licensing hell!
nbrewer at visi.com
Fri Aug 24 06:39:42 CEST 2001
Bruce Sass <bsass at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Chris Farley wrote:
>> Does this mean I can't distribute just the .DLL, and that I need to
>> distribute the entire non-commercial version of Qt? Ack!
> You should be able to handle it the same way GPLed software
> distributors do... make separate binary and source packages, have both
> available so your users can get to the source they want it.
Except, the 'non-commercial' edition of Qt for Windows is not distributed
under a GPL-compatible license (unlike the X11 version of Qt).
It *sounds* like they want you to be able to develop free (as in free
beer) software; they go so far as to insist that you may 'include an
executable version of your software'. My software won't actually execute
without qt-mt230nc.dll, so I assume it's okay to include it.
However, I would prefer to not distribute the 'entire package', which I
take to mean as the entire Qt Non-Commercial Edition, which includes,
among other things, Qt-Designer, API documentation, etc.
Of course, I can't find *any* examples of free Windows Qt distributed as
> Of course, TrollTech are really the ones to ask.
Indeed. I was just wondering if anybody in this group has any experience
with these licensing issues...
More information about the Python-list