On Tuesday 21 July 2015 12:21:35 Ansel Sermersheim wrote:
> Hi Gunnar,
>
> We used to say "Qt" which we thought was the name of the project. We
> were asked to use the name "The Qt Project". We do not mind changing
> how we address the company and the library. Since we meant to harm may
> we suggest this be conveyed to others a little more gently.
The point is that there's a difference between:
Qt the product, the framework, the
libraries
Qt Project the open source project organised to
develop Qt
The Qt Company the company that holds the rights under the CLA and
the trademark to Qt
And, for that matter,
Qt Creator the IDE
(lots of people come on IRC and say something about Qt, when they meant Qt
Creator)
> I am not a lawyer but this language is very clear. It may not be The Qt
> Company policy or practice to accept changes into the commercial version
> only, but if I were to sign the CLA I would be granting them the right,
> irrevocably and perpetually. Since these rights are transferable I have
> no recourse if the license is transferred to another entity who uses my
> contribution in a way I did not intend.
That's actually common practice. The commercial version is identical to the
open source version in functionality and codebase. The reverse is required by
the KDE Free Qt Foundation: everything released commercially must be present
in the open source version (at least, as long as it's Android or X11, but in
practice it is the case for all platforms).
It makes no sense to keep two separate trees. Even when Trolltech had pieces
of functionality that weren't present in the open source version, Trolltech
kept a single tree. The release scripts simply removed some files before the
release.
That hasn't been the case since March 2009. When the Git repositories opened.
> Most open source development communities are structured in such a way
> that all participants have equal rights. The Qt Company is in a position
> to exercise additional rights not enjoyed by the rest of the Qt
> community. This is certainly a legal and enforceable position. However,
> it bothers many members of the larger open source community including
> myself.
Understandable. For us, it's a trade-off: the community accepts giving The Qt
Company some extra rights in exchange for them employing a large chunk of the
work force, including the entirety of the QA team and running the entire CI
system and infrastructure for us.
> We have talked with other developers and read discussions about this for
> over a decade. Many members of the larger open source community,
> including myself, are not comfortable with this clause.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
