Verily I say unto thee, that Matt spake thusly:
> The lame article (no reference to Roy) doesn't mention the commercial
> way of licensing Qt. Has that changed?
I assume not, since a change to one license does not necessarily imply a
change to others, but for an authoritative answer ... simply read it
yourself:
http://trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing
> It seems you still have to pay for a license if you want to use Qt to
> develop commercial software.
Seems reasonable, although note that the key word here is "proprietary",
not "commercial", since the GPL does not preclude deriving an income
from GPL licensed software, it is merely that /proprietary licenses/ are
incompatible.
> Can anybody verify that?
Yes, see the above link to Trolltech.
As for the GPL issue:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
> Hard to get comfortable with a product whose logo looks so much like
> a hammer and sickle.
Somehow I think that if they were Communists, they wouldn't be selling
commercial licenses for profit. Having such a reaction to a mere logo is
quite irrational. Do you check under your bed for "Commies", every night
before you go to bed, by any chance? Frankly I think you should be more
concerned about what your own government is doing, which is frankly far
more sinister than any Communist regime.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
18:25:40 up 30 days, 16:01, 4 users, load average: 0.57, 0.17, 0.07
|
|
