I respect that. That I don't want my code to be used in a non-open manner without getting paid is my personal decision, of course.
On 19/04/12 23:59, BRM wrote: > Just FYI - > > FSF requires the signing of a CLA that gives them nearly the same authority > for any GNU projects. They could theoretically change the license of all GNU > GPL/LGPL projects they run to a 100% proprietary license without any recourse > from the developers involved (they signed the CLA). However, practically > speaking they'll never do anything other than update to a new version of the > GPL/LGPL. > > > The Linux Kernel doesn't have a direct CLA; but you do have to sign a bunch > of stuff with every commit you make or it won't be accepted. Fortunately, > that's built into git so its easily managed. This was done in response to the > SCO vs. the World litigation - to ensure every commit was legally provided, > and a tracking of it to prove it. > > > Apache Software Foundation requires a CLA as well if you want to commit to > any ASF project (e.g. OpenOffice, HTTPd, Subversion, etc.). > > > That is to say, many mature open source organizations and projects that are > well respected in the community use a CLA to protect themselves and their > ability to update licenses to address concerns that come up. > As others have said, it's a matter of being practical (pragmatic, realistic, > etc.) over fundamental. > > For Qt, it also preserves the ability for the commercial version which, as > others have pointed out, has numerous benefits for the community, and the > protection of the Free Qt Foundation as well. > > $0.02 > > Ben > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Nikos Chantziaras<rea...@gmail.com> >> To: interest@qt-project.org >> Cc: >> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 8:16 PM >> Subject: Re: [Interest] Contributor agreement rundown >> >> T hen I'd say Qt was not suitable for "open governance" and >> "open development". Or not ready for it. >> >> It's a funny situation right now. I can use Qt like an open project, >> but am not allowed to contribute to it in an open manner. In a sense, >> you must contribute more than you get. That is unfair. >> >> >> On 19/04/12 00:10, BRM wrote: >>> As pointed out, the main reason Qt Commercial customers buys the >>> commercial >> license is to not to have to worry about some of the LGPL requirements - >> namely >> the ability to static link. >>> Where I presently work has a commercial license. We static link a lot of >> things. Could we dynamically link? Probably. >>> We don't modify Qt itself (though we could); but we primarily don't >> want to have to worry about the LGPL requirements either (e.g. providing >> object >> files that can be relinked, etc.) - the company is too small to try to keep >> track of all of that, nor are our customers really interested in it. >>> >>> So there are very big concerns that the Qt Commercial License alleviates. >>> >>> Ben >>> >>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Nikos Chantziaras<rea...@gmail.com> >>>> To: interest@qt-project.org >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 4:05 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Interest] Contributor agreement rundown >>>> >>>> Again, that's not my issue. LGPL allows commercial exploitation of >> the >>>> code. The issue is taking open code and closing it, not allowing me >>>> anymore to see how it was modified. Being commercial has nothing to do >>>> with this. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18/04/12 22:10, Jason H wrote: >>>>> Really It's a question of comparative greed. If you don't >> want your >>>>> source in the commercial arena, where people can make money off of >> you, >>>>> well what's the value of that as compared to the value of the >> code that >>>>> you get for free, as well as the value you get by those commercial >>>>> interests testing the code for you. >>>>> >>>>> Really the commercial interests (and this is a generalization) use >> the >>>>> commercial license to buy support. Their main concern is in having >> Qt >>>>> work, while not divulging their "competitive advantages" >> which has >>>>> nothing to do with the Qt toolkit (unless you count Qt as a whole). >> I've >>>>> worked at several (4) companies that used Qt and some commercially >>>>> licensed Qt (3), and it wasn't about withholding patches or >> profiting >>>>> from your code. In all cases it was getting our existing code to >> work >>>>> with a GUI, and not having to publish our source. (Now moot due to >> LGPL) >>>>> >>>>> Give some, get a lot. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Girish Ramakrishnan<gir...@forwardbias.in> >>>>> *To:* Bo Thorsen<b...@fioniasoftware.dk> >>>>> *Cc:* interest@qt-project.org >>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:46 PM >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Interest] Contributor agreement rundown >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Bo Thorsen<b...@fioniasoftware.dk >>>>> <mailto:b...@fioniasoftware.dk>> wrote: >>>>> > Den 18-04-2012 10:33, John Layt skrev: >>>>> >> It is a trade-off, but not entirely one-way. They get >> to sell your >>>>> code, but >>>>> >> the money raised goes towards supporting Qt. >>>>> > >>>>> > Actually, I see this more as a "yes, you can buy >> commercial support". It >>>>> > closes one of the objections my customers have. Of course, >> I usually >>>>> > convince them that I'm all the support they need :) >> But it is a question >>>>> > I've heard so often with OSS software, and it's >> one of the things >>>>> > non-OSS people are concerned about. >>>>> > >>>>> > It doesn't look like Digia is using this to fund a lot >> of new Qt >>>>> > development, but if they use it to support older Qt >> versions, this is a >>>>> > great thing as well (assuming those patches go to the OSS >> Qt). People >>>>> > paid on OSS projects should do the boring parts :) >>>>> >>>>> A quick update from qt-project: Digia may not be contributing a lot >> to >>>>> new development (yet) but they have been contributing quite a bit >> (a >>>>> quick grep shows ~1500 patches with them as author) to Qt4 and they >>>>> have been doing a great job so far. >>>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
