|
 |
| Tue, May 13th | home | browse | articles | contact | chat | submit | faq | newsletter | about | stats | scoop | 11:23 PDT |
|
|
login « register « recover password « |
|
| [Article] | add comment | [Article] |
|
|
|
In today's editorial, Eirik Eng of Trolltech responds to Joseph Carter's comments on KDE and Debian with a discussion of the original intent of the QPL, an explanation of how Trolltech views the current situation, and a preview of the future of the license. Copyright notice: All reader-contributed material on freshmeat.net is the property and responsibility of its author; for reprint rights, please contact the author directly. It has been Trolltech policy to avoid becoming embroiled in licensing discussions within the free software community. Instead, we have sought to provide the best technical solution for software developers. We have seen ourselves as coders, not politicians. Besides, these discussions take too much time. However, we feel that we have remained silent for too long; it is time to tell our side of the story. Let me point out one thing from the beginning: We love Free Software and use a lot of Free Software, and most of our employees stem from the Free Software world. We really care about Free Software like the GNU tools and free operating systems like Linux and FreeBSD. In fact, they form our main development platforms. Let me first tell you a little bit about Trolltech's background and business model. When we started to distribute the Qt Free Edition for Unix/X11 in 1995, Free Software was way behind the competition when it came to graphical user interfaces. This was not due to the fact that it is particularly difficult to write graphical applications or that Free Software developers lack experience regarding user friendliness. The main reason for the difference in quality was that commercial developers had access to an entirely different set of tools that made it much easier to develop this kind of software. These tools usually cost much more than students or spare-time hackers could afford or were willing to invest in their hobby. Our goal was to provide developers of Free Software for Unix exactly the same tools that developers of commercial applications use: No crippled free versions, no strange limitations, but high-quality software for everybody without compromises. This is still what we are doing today. In fact, we are so sure that we are going to continue doing this that we established the KDE Free Qt Foundation in 1998. This foundation legally binds Trolltech to always supply an Open Source version of Qt. This makes Qt a very safe choice as a software development platform. The traditional model of commercial Open Source development has been to give away the software and live from support and services. We believe that this model has several weaknesses. It is our philosophy that we should make Qt so good and so well documented that support is not needed. We feel that if we manage to do this, we have done something good, not something that should take away a significant part of our income. We see it this way: The companies that purchase Qt Professional Edition licenses from us get access to a high quality toolkit. A toolkit that has been developed using the Open Source model, and that has been debugged and tested by thousands of independent Open Source programmers across the world. When a company buys a license from us, they fund the further development of a toolkit that can be used free of charge by Open Source developers around the globe. Qt has now been licensed under the QPL, a license that complies with the Open Source definition, for over a year. From the feedback we are getting, it seems that most Open Source developers are quite happy with the QPL. Most of the discussions surrounding the QPL have been about the question of GPL compatibility. To make things clear, we have, from the very beginning, meant that one can make GPLed programs using Qt. It all comes down to how the terms "Program" and "Derivative Work under copyright law" are to be interpreted in the GPL. For the "Program" case, it has been claimed that when a program uses the Qt API, Qt becomes a part of that program. We, and lawyers we have consulted, cannot see how this can be the case. And if it is, which version of Qt? Windows, X11, or Qt/Embedded? All? Does this also apply to other things? Does the X server become a part of a program that uses X? Does the Qt/Embedded server become a part of a program that uses Qt/Embedded? When we first released Qt there was already de-facto acceptance in the community that one could make GPLed programs using Motif, even before Lesstiff came along. Motif was a proprietary and non-free library with a much stricter license than Qt. Now, for the "Derivative work" case, it has been claimed that a program using Qt is a derivative work of Qt, or vice versa. Since it is programs that use Qt that use the GPL, only the latter case is relevant in license discussions. The GPL only talks about programs that are derivative works of the GPLed program, not the other way around. Some people have seriously claimed that Qt is a derivative work of KDE. Quite frankly, we found such a notion to be ridiculous, Qt existed long before KDE came along. Having said this, we do understand that not everyone in the community agrees with our views. As has been mentioned recently, we did have ongoing discussions with several parties, just before releasing the QPL, about making the QPL GPL compatible in their eyes. It is not correct, as has recently been claimed, that we thought we had achieved this goal. We made some changes to the QPL to try to achieve this, but the final conclusion was that we were far from the goal. In the end, we decided to take out some of the changes that had been put in since they no longer served a purpose. A question we are often asked is why we didn't simply put Qt under the GPL when we Open Sourced it. We have always wanted Qt to be as free as possible while still having a viable business model. If the GPL effectively protected a GPLed library from being used to develop proprietary software, we would allow relicensing Qt under the GPL. But, as I have said, it is not our belief that using a library is making a derivative work. We have had an ongoing discussion with several players in the community about these issues, and we do seem to be getting somewhere. We are working, and have been for some time, to make QPL version 2.0. We expect to have a final version in the near future. The main changes we plan to make are to remove the patch clause and clause 6c. The patch clause was meant to avoid leaving Qt users with slightly incompatible versions of the library without the possibility to tell where the code stems from. However, the Qt user community is now so large that we believe that this is less likely in the current situation. We also see that people tend to send their patches to us so we can include them in the official versions of Qt. Clause 6c has been claimed to be the major reason for GPL incompatibility in the QPL. This clause gave us the possibility to ensure that companies writing internal Open Source software indeed release their source code to the general public. The QPL version 2.0 will hopefully end the license discussions once and for all and get us all back to coding again. Eirik Eng (eirik.eng@trolltech.com) is the President and co-founder of Trolltech and holds an M.Sc. in Computer Science. He wrote the first versions of Qt together with Haavard Nord, but has been transformed into a pointy-haired boss. Despite his ripe age of 34, he sometimes lurks around the Trolltech offices with an armed nerf gun. He is married to a beautiful French woman and is the father of 2 boys.
T-Shirts and Fame!We're eager to find people interested in writing editorials on software-related topics. We're flexible on length, style, and topic, so long as you know what you're talking about and back up your opinions with facts. Anyone who writes an editorial gets a freshmeat t-shirt from ThinkGeek in addition to 15 minutes of fame. If you think you'd like to try your hand at it, let jeff.covey@freshmeat.net know what you'd like to write about.[Comments are disabled]
[»]
QPL cann't be using but Win32 can??? The thing that I don't understand it that much free software also has a windows port (take Emacs for example.) If that free software is using the Win32 API's then why are they not derivative works of windows like Qt using software are derivative works of Qt? I admit, I a newbie to Linux, but that means also that I haven't seen these flame wars or all the issues around them, I'm just taking this from common sense.
[»]
BSD License Sorry elleron. You are right.
[»]
bsd license Why bother using the newer (no ad clause) BSD license? Why not just put your stuff into the public domain? There really is no difference that I can see, if your aim is to let anyone use your code in any way he sees fit including denying you his changes.
[»]
BSD and Copyrights The BSD license does not dismiss copyrights. It licenses you to do whatever you want with the program, which is a horse of an entirely different color. Software under the BSD license is truly free in every sense of the word. GPL'd software, on the other hand, comes with a large number of restrictions. While the GPL may be a good license for the complete GNU system, it's a bad license for an individual project.
[»]
Re: Two sides to every coin... Now I would like to say that, from the FSF view, it is perfectly o.k. to use such BSD-like Licensed programs, but they do not recommend that you use these Licenses (I also am referring to any other License that is deemed to incompatible with the GPL) because they do not legally protect you rights by using the "copyleft". You miss the point entirely. BSD(-like) licenses dismiss the copyright. You are free to do what you want with it. Most of the time the only thing requested is some acknowledgement, but that is not a prerequisite with, for example, the Beer-Ware or 2-clause BSD license.
[»]
Professionalism In theory it is all very simple.
[»]
Why thank you... ..Rogain, for a clever argument equating non-GPL users with supporters of
oppressive governments.
[»]
but then again An iso file is not executable code.
[»]
The other side of the coin I, for one, am firmly on the other side of the coin from the FSF. That's not to say I agree with the QPL, or belittle the FSF. I do, however, feel that the BSD and MIT style licenses are far superior to the GPL. Compilcated licenses are counter-productive, and uneccesary. Look at the largest Berkley and MIT endevors, BSD and X11. Both have spawned succesful properitary products, without putting a dent in the juggernaut that the respective projects are. This is a compelling argument that none of these restrictive terms are neccesary. As to being counter-productive, the viral nature of the GPL makes it incompatible with just about every other license in existence. Amid cries of "GPL Eerywhere" people who actually publish compilations of code struggle to find out where they are legally. The FSF has started to remind me of the SPA the way they agressively rattle the sabre about license issues. To follow the static linkage argument as far as we can push it, every commerical program sold for Linux is violating the GPL. (The kernel headers are GPL). In fact, any binary built with gcc that doesn't use a GNU license is in violation of the GPL, since gcc links in gpl'd object files. I think everyone would agree, both of these examples are contrived, and not what and of the authors intended. What did the Troll Tech people intend? Simple, that they would be the only source for Qt and that it would only be free for non-commercial use. I personally feel they've gone above and beyond in taking steps to insure it will revert to the BSD license if anything happens to the company.
[»]
Two sides to every coin... I used to use KDE as my main desktop environment, because I really wasn't aware of the Licensing issues until I decided to write my ethics paper on the "Ethics of the Free Software Movement". Then I finally understood (or at least in my mind) what "free" software is all about. It is about freedom. Software is a different animal then most tangible goods such as hardware or, to use one of Stallman's examples, a sandwhich. If somebody eats my sandwhich then I am deprived of the nutrition and this definitely affects me. However, with software things are different, because it is easily copied and despite all the arguments this does not really affect anyone except the parties that are directly involved. If I give my buddy a copy, the only one that is truly affected are him and I. It is a gross exaggeration to believe that my buddy would have actually bought a copy and thus you are losing profits. Moving on, I have noticed that there seems to be two sides or (I hate to use the word) "political" parties in the free software community (and yes, I mean free speech, not free beer) those who are conservative such as the GNU Project and strive to make software that is not only free, but software that is Licensed to protect these freedoms legally using a copyleft compatible License like the GPL (the LGPL is basically viewed as a failed endeavor, beacause so many were using it in the wrong context and missed the point entirely, hence the name change to Lesser GPL); those who are more liberal and take the view that they want or their motivations are to "make a profit". The "liberals" (sorry for the U.S. political analogy, but it seems to fit...) usually use BSD-like Licenses that permit others to make proprietary derivative works or to take your free software and include it in propreitry versions (such as QT for Winblows). Examples of such software are Apache, PHP, Zend (which uses the QPL), etc. Now I would like to say that, from the FSF view, it is perfectly o.k. to use such BSD-like Licensed programs, but they do not recommend that you use these Licenses (I also am referring to any other License that is deemed to incompatible with the GPL) because they do not legally protect you rights by using the "copyleft". ------------------------SNIP------------------------- However, if you have written a program that uses Qt, and you want to release your program under the GNU GPL, you can easily do that. You can resolve the conflict for your program by adding a notice like this to it: As a special exception, you have permission to link this program with the Qt library and distribute executables, as long as you follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the software in the executable aside from Qt. You can do this, legally, if you are the copyright holder for the
program. Add it in the source files, after the notice that says the
program is covered by the GNU GPL. Now this doesn't exmplain much of what is wrong with the QPL, but after having looked it over these are the problems that I see:
The last two conditions give special rights to the author. The GPL forbids this it states that you should give others the same rights that you have. The main reason is that Troll Tech can take your code and then turn around and sell it and make a profit but you cannot. The GPL places no restriction on selling your software. Also they can take it and roll it into the windows version which is proprietary. This is my best guess why the FSF does not like the License and why its use is dsicouraged. Finally I would like state that I take the side of the FSF. Their philosophy and motivations are different then companies like Troll Tech, Zend technologies, Netscape (mozilla project people). For the FSF and the GNU project their motivation is providing you with freedom and allowing you to share information and make a contribution to society. So if I were to go into the "business" of free software my main drive is not going to be in making a profit, although you would have to keep things a float somehow (this is probably why the GNU guys founded the FSF), it would be a matter of ethics and what I believe should be given to you when you buy software or get a copy from your buddy. While it would be nice if Troll Tech would fix the Licensing issues I don't think that they will do it because they simply do not share the same motivations/views as the FSF. I don't think they want to give everyone the same freedoms that they have with reagrds to QT. However, I would encourage people to help HelixCode make GNOME even better, after all it is a GNU Project so it will be truly free. One of the cool things about GNOME is you can write applications in any Language you want (there are bindings for most). Cheers,
[»]
Aggregative Works and Other Falacies "Linking forms an aggregative work, which is considered a derivative work under copyright law in the US. " Please read your copyright law again. If two authors get their works published in an anthology, neither has rights to the other's works. "If linking isn't forming a derivative work of Qt, then how can the QPL restrict in-house development of undistributed programs? " Simple, they are restricting the usage of their libraries, some as the GPL does for libraries under it. This has nothing to do with derivation.
[»]
forgot to mention
[»]
Trolltech on Qt, KDE, and the QPL The disputes here seem more about splitting lincense hairs than what
software like Qt (and GCC and Postgres ...) provide us with: great free
software for the home writer. The licensing diffs between each product
(project ?) effect primarily commercial use of the software and I hope it
all gets worked out. Troll, like any of us, gotta eat. And if they can
make some cash why not?
[»]
Re: QPL 2.0? First I've heard of it, I doubt Debian is invited to the discussion I must say I agree with J.J. Ramsey. Joseph Carter might be making a valid
point. Or TrollTech might be. However, whatever valid points they are
trying to make are so obscured by hype, wounded pride, and arogence that
no one can get to the bottom of things. I would also like to see:
[»]
Re: QPL 2.0? First I've heard of it, I doubt Debian is invited to the discussion "FWIW, Clause 6(c) of the QPL is not the only clause that is a problem (but it is the one Troll Tech is most likely to ever change..) There were three issues found, one of which spans two clauses." From what I've understood, the problems with the QPL are with the so-called "patch clause" (modifications must be made in a form separate from the Software) and clause 6c. What are the other things tripping up the QPL? "Most of the above feels like an attempt to dodge the issues I raised." Actually, most of the above reads like a response to the mishmash of opinions on Slashdot. It looks like the folks at Troll Tech have only a half-understanding of what the compatibility problems are; they haven't filtered out all the noise and have only faintly sifted out the signal. This is hardly surprising. While there has been a lot of argument, no one, unfortunately including you, Mr. Carter, has laid out point by point, just what the problems are. The result is a lot of misunderstanding and confusion. I think, Mr. Carter, that you have assumed that the people involved in the QPL/KDE controversy really know what the issues are. "Nothing changes. If KDE wanted these issues resolved, they would have been. . . . As I said, I'm through wasting my time." Look, despair is useless. While positive thinking is no guarantee of a positive outlook, giving up is a guarantee of defeat.
[»]
re: QPL 2.0? First I've heard .... This is sort of a follow up to Joseph Carter's post above(or below). What
you are saying is that if I write a program that uses QT and I make it
available under GPL, I'm violating the GPL?
[»]
Free .... almost. So they're working out the issues on the X11 version of Qt. Good. What about Windows? Just because the OS isn't free doesn't mean the software can't be free. I write (free) software that I'd love to run on both X and Windows. I initially started using Qt but was turned away when I saw the (then, I haven't checked recently) $1200 price tag for the Windows version. That wasn't even the thing that made me switch though. In a thread on the Qt mailing list about that very issue, one of the developers (I forget who) said that if you don't like it, use something else. Well, now I do. wxWindows is what I use now, and it is an outstanding product. Ah well, another "could be usable if only..." piece of software to add to the heap. (Note: I only disagree with the license for Windows, I still believe Qt is a quality piece of software, I will give them that, I just wouldn't use it.)
[»]
QPL 2.0? First I've heard of it, I doubt Debian is invited to the discussion FWIW, Clause 6(c) of the QPL is not the only clause that is a problem (but it is the one Troll Tech is most likely to ever change..) There were three issues found, one of which spans two clauses. It's worth noting that Debian has not been invited to the discussion for potential problems for this new QPL version may have (nor could they drag me into another round of false sincerity - I've been at this long enough to know they aren't serious about a resolution... Especially since they still claim that any GPL'd program using Qt is legal! They'd have to find some other fool to show people as "proof" they're serious about the impact this has on the community..) Most of the above feels like an attempt to dodge the issues I raised. I've already since pointed out two serious cases where anyone can see that KDE has violated the GPL outright. And while it isn't Troll Tech's problem if KDE is violating the GPL, they certainly ARE making a profit from it. Their primary interest here is to take focus off the points I made because those points could seriously affect their bottom line. Nothing changes. If KDE wanted these issues resolved, they would have been. The QPL was just an attempt to get Red Hat and Debian to accept KDE. It worked on Red Hat even though they KNOW KDE violates the GPL. And no less than four Red Hat employees emailled me when I wrote my editorial making exuses about market demands forcing them to include KDE regardless of the license situation they knew hadn't been resolved. Thank you Red Hat - it likely never will be since you people are cited as proof there is no real problem. You guaranteed that all of my work was for nothing - less than nothing. As I said, I'm through wasting my time.
[»]
The Trolls don't seem too consistent in their thought... The Trolls have a cute little mis-logic loop: the GPL can't restrict linking to non-Free software, so GPLed code can be linked with Qt without any problems. Thus, we can't release Qt under the GPL because then people would link it to non-Free software. They're claiming "we can't be wrong, so therefore we're not wrong." Both of these claims are outright lies. Linking forms an aggregative work, which is considered a derivative work under copyright law in the US. The GPL restricts distribution of derivative works. In fact, their own beloved QPL works on the same principles of copyright law, though it restricts the very creation of derivative works, not just their distribution. If linking isn't forming a derivative work of Qt, then how can the QPL restrict in-house development of undistributed programs? If linking isn't forming a derivative work of GPLed programs, then what's the purpose of the LGPL, and why has the FSF been so successful at stopping people from distributing GPLed programs they own linked with non-Free code (ncftp, objective-C gcc, ...)? By switching to a GPL license, the only big loss for Troll Tech is that commercial companies could start developing non-Free software with Qt to see if it meets their needs before buying the "professional" version. Of course, it is possible that a large portion of their income is from companies which never actually ship a product using Qt. It is the Troll's code, so they can license it however they want. If it weren't for Troll/KDE denying that there exists a problem, the license issue probably would have gone away a long time ago (since the people in charge of KDE are employed by Troll Tech).
[»]
The changes that they are planning would fix the problem . . .Yesssss! The "patch clause" and clause 6c were indeed the sticking points
that made the QPL GPL-incompatible. If Troll Tech leaves the QPL otherwise
intact but removes those two clauses, then the compatibility problems would
be pretty much resolved. Actually, in lieu of the "patch clause,"
Troll Tech could put this in the QPL: "You must cause the modified
files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and
the date of any change." Considering that was stole^H^H^H^H^H^H
cut-and-pasted from the GPL, that would hardly be a restriction above and
beyond the GPL. :-)
[»]
Community in guard Well... There is the strength of Linux! in the community! The " Veteran " linux community members help guard the interests of the general Linux community. This " Veteran " Linux community members even look out for those ppl that still dont Join the Linux community by analizing and allowing or not new programs and working schemes. If this guys dont like the way something operates...no matter what they will inform to the rest of the community on its dangers to the System and its community. I personally dont know if QT is good or bad for the Linux and other Open Systems. I just know that i started using HelixCode and i prefer in that case...pay some money to Gnome team that has worked so much for nothing in return. QT is good and they trying to make a good product, i understand that. But i would rather stick to a real Open Library and group of ppl.
[»]
Windows Qt? I have messed with Qt a little, mostly because I want to have applications
that run on Windows and on Linux. When I went to the Troll tech web site
it looks like only the unix version of Qt is released to be free for non
commercial applications. I just gave up on Qt at that point and moved to
GTK+ even though the Windows port is much less mature. I don't mind the
"free unless it's commercial" (Whichever TLA you wan't) license,
but it seems the the Qt library was playing the same way as MySQL (Now
GPL). You have to buy a Windows license if you want more than a trial
version.
[»]
QPL Vs GPL What is wrong with the QPL? It allows for developers of good software to
make some $. It still allows for free developers to use the software and
distribute it. Everyone always sais that the propriatery model produces
inferior software. Unfortunatly, corporations are wery of the GPL, and so
they won't use it. They also won't produce opensource code under the GPL
because they won't make money. The BSD license gives no incentive for
large corporations to produce software becuase they have to give it away.
I think the QPL is a viable option for opensource developers to make some $
and fuel our industry. THat is what we are, is an industry, and industy's
don't survive without $.
[»]
Program I'd say that if a GPL program is statically linked with Qt, Qt becomes part of it, but not when dynamically linked.
[»]
Business model for GPL I think Troll should reconsider releasing QT under the GPL. As far as I
understand a GPLed library (not LGPL) permits only GPLed code to be linked
against.
[»]
Re: interesting They dont hide that they want to get money for their works. And I find this
desire quite natural.
[»]
Re: interesting
|
|
