I am not a lawyer, not even half a lawyer; that said: the good news is that any and all proceeds go into the coffers of Digia who actually man the register, and they will hopefully find Qt lucrative enough to ramp up their development and become an increasingly large contributor, along with all our other partners who hopefully have a vested rewarding interest in keeping Qt relevant and widespread.
Qt has always had flexible licensing since some companies/groups simply feel a general malaise when using software under the GPL/LGPL. I don't begrudge them this sentiment, the water is somewhat untested and there are quite possibly dragons afoot. Many commercial customers were actually alarmed by the increasing intrusion of 3rdparty LGPL code into the Qt code base that we require for certain core functionality. For instance v8's BSD license as opposed to JavaScriptCore's LGPL should (I believe) remove any LGPL taint from Qt Quick 2 usage for commercial customers. Cheers, Donald On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Nikos Chantziaras <rea...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was under the impression that the LGPL is perfectly suitable for > proprietary applications. I don't want to sound like a greedy > egomaniac, but giving code I intend to be open source to be used under a > proprietary license without me getting paid sounds like a rip-off. > > > On 18/04/12 03:57, Scott Aron Bloom wrote: >> Yes you did.. >> >> Otherwise, they would have to keep a separate branch, one for opensource one >> for commercial. >> >> Anything you submit can be incorporated in both. >> >> Scott >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: interest-bounces+scott.bloom=onshorecs....@qt-project.org >> [mailto:interest-bounces+scott.bloom=onshorecs....@qt-project.org] On Behalf >> Of Nikos Chantziaras >> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 5:55 PM >> To: interest@qt-project.org >> Subject: [Interest] Contributor agreement rundown >> >> I went to register for a Gerrit account. There I saw that I must agree to a >> "contributor agreement". It's very legalese, so I'm not sure if it means >> what I think it means: Nokia can transform open source code I contribute >> into non-open code? >> >> "Licensor hereby grants, in exchange for good and valuable consideration, >> the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, to Nokia a >> sublicensable, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, >> royalty-free and fully paid-up copyright and trade secret license to >> reproduce, adapt, translate, modify, and prepare derivative works of, >> publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, make available and >> distribute Licensor Contribution(s) and any derivative works thereof under >> license terms of Nokia’s choosing including any Open Source Software >> license." >> >> The beef is the phrase "under license terms of Nokia’s choosing", which can >> be an open license, but is not required to. >> >> Did I understand that correctly? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Interest mailing list >> Interest@qt-project.org >> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest >> _______________________________________________ >> Interest mailing list >> Interest@qt-project.org >> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest > > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest -- ------------------------------- °v° Donald Carr /(_)\ Vaguely Professional Penguin lover ^ ^ Cave canem, te necet lingendo Chasing my own tail; hate to see me leave, love to watch me go _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
