is there really no good gui builder

Phil Thompson phil at riverbankcomputing.com
Sun Nov 9 17:28:27 CET 2008


On 9 Nov 2008 14:40:22 GMT, Duncan Booth <duncan.booth at invalid.invalid>
wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> 
>>> It is a novel interpretation of the GPL. Qt Software have every
>>> right to impose this sort of condition, but it makes me want to
>>> avoid them.
>>
>> No, they have no such right to interpret the GPL this way; it would be
>> entirely incompatible with the GPL since it would be an imposition of
>> additional restrictions, resulting in work that could not legally be
>> redistributed at all.
> 
> Thay aren't claiming that Qt itself is governed by the GPL, what they
> are claiming is that the 'Qt Open Source License' permits you to use it
> for development of "Open Source software governed by the GNU General
> Public License versions 2 and 3". I believe they can make whatever
> conditions they like for their own license.

This is just plain wrong. The open source version is licensed under either
v2 or v3 of the GPL - your choice. There is no such thing as a separate "Qt
Open Source License".

> The GPL doesn't actually say you cannot redistribute work which adds
> additional restrictions. It says "If the Program as you
>  received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
>  governed by this License along with a term that is a further
>  restriction, you may remove that term."
> 
>> In fact, I don't think they are making such an interpretation, though
>> their poorly-worded web page that you quoted certainly encourages
>> readers to make such a false interpretation.
> 
> It looks very much to me as though they are trying to make
> that interpretation, it is repeated in a variety of forms across the
> website. But it doesn't really matter whether they can make it stick or
> not, I simply choose to avoid worrying about the issue by choosing
> another platform where possible. (Which is a shame really as the small
> amount of playing I did with Qt indicates it to be a very nice
> platform.)
> 
> The license itself says:

...you mean the webpage, the license is the standard GPL with all that that
implies...

> "This means that you cannot use a Qt Open Source Edition if your
> software must be built with any modules that impose conditions on you
> that contradict the conditions of the GNU GPL, including, but not
> limited to, software patents, commercial license agreements,
> copyrighted interface definitions or any sort of non-disclosure
> agreement (NDA). In these circumstances you must use a commercial
> edition of Qt."
> 
> That I guess taken literally that means you cannot use Qt Open Source
> Edition if your software uses Qt Open Source Edition.

The only "additional" restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial*
license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage
commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their
development phase.

Phil



More information about the Python-list mailing list