Qt licensing hell!

Bruce Sass bsass at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Fri Aug 24 19:59:20 CEST 2001

On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, Chris Farley wrote:
> 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).

Right, but the GPL has the restriction that source must be made
available... if you are distributing via a website just put the Qt
stuff you are obligated to distribute on the site, in a separate
package, just like the distributors of GPLed stuff do with the source
they must distribute.

> 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.

If TrollTech wants you to make all that stuff available, then you
really have little choice except to make it available... but I doubt
anyone will insist you package it up in the same file a your app.

> Of course, I can't find *any* examples of free Windows Qt distributed as
> binaries.

Too new for that (everyone is watching to see what you do ;).

- Bruce

More information about the Python-list mailing list