Qt now LGPL

This is a discussion on Qt now LGPL within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?.../01/14/1312210 gg...

  1. #1
    Registered User Codeplug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    4,660

    Qt now LGPL


  2. #2
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    Excellent!
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  3. #3
    Frequently Quite Prolix dwks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,046
    I think it's kind of funny that Qt was originally QPL'd, and then they allowed it to be GPL'd, and now it's LGPL'd.
    dwk

    Seek and ye shall find. quaere et invenies.

    "Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it." -- Alan Perlis
    "Testing can only prove the presence of bugs, not their absence." -- Edsger Dijkstra
    "The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing." -- John Powell


    Other boards: DaniWeb, TPS
    Unofficial Wiki FAQ: cpwiki.sf.net

    My website: http://dwks.theprogrammingsite.com/
    Projects: codeform, xuni, atlantis, nort, etc.

  4. #4
    Woof, woof! zacs7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,459
    Too late, already loyal to Gtk+

  5. #5
    & the hat of GPL slaying Thantos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,681
    Quote Originally Posted by dwks View Post
    I think it's kind of funny that Qt was originally QPL'd, and then they allowed it to be GPL'd, and now it's LGPL'd.
    Hopefully they'll improve it again and go with a freer (is that a word?) license like BSD or MIT

  6. #6
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Thats nice, LGPL open it up to be profitable to devlop for, without paying royalties, so thats a good thing versus only beign GPL. I think LGPL also allows you to keep proprietary modifications secret.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  7. #7
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    Nope, it doesn't. That's what makes it different from the BSD license. (And that you can generally hide that you're using something BSD-licensed. With the LGPL, you have to point it out and be able to provide the source of the LGPL thing.)
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,170
    Great news!

    (I didn't even know it's now owned by Nokia...)

  9. #9
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by CornedBee View Post
    Nope, it doesn't. That's what makes it different from the BSD license. (And that you can generally hide that you're using something BSD-licensed. With the LGPL, you have to point it out and be able to provide the source of the LGPL thing.)
    No, I'm pretty sure you can roll LPGL code together with proprietary code without the proprietary code becoming open source. I looke dinto this for a previous employer and even wrote the FSF about it. GPL code however is viral in that anything it is used with also becomes open source.

    I could be mistaken however...
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  10. #10
    & the hat of GPL slaying Thantos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,681
    What LGPL requires is that you provide the source for the LGPL licensed components. I assume from CornedBee's comment (and from my experience it seems correct) that you'd also have to state which LGPL components you are using.

    So lets say you've got LGPL package XYZ that is statically linked to your proprietary code. You've got to let people know you are using XYZ and provide the source.

    Just a though about providing the source: I wonder if it is enough to provide a link to the XYZ project page that has the source.

    Actually people should just use the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL license

  11. #11
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    No, I'm pretty sure you can roll LPGL code together with proprietary code without the proprietary code becoming open source. I looke dinto this for a previous employer and even wrote the FSF about it. GPL code however is viral in that anything it is used with also becomes open source.

    I could be mistaken however...
    You can create proprietary programs that link against LGPL stuff without having to open-source your proprietary stuff. That's the difference between the LGPL and the GPL.

    However, when you said modifications above, I assumed you meant modification to the LGPL thing itself, which you can't do.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  12. #12
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,239
    Quote Originally Posted by CornedBee View Post
    You can create proprietary programs that link against LGPL stuff without having to open-source your proprietary stuff. That's the difference between the LGPL and the GPL.
    True, but you either have to dynamically link, or provide object files for your product so that the end user can drop in a different version of the LGPL library.

    In almost any commercial product that's going to be unacceptable for a number of reasons. First and foremost, if the user can change code from underneath your application, how can you possibly support it? You never know if the bug being reported is actually in your app, or if it came from some stupid change the user made to the LGPL component.

    LGPL is mostly a pipe dream. I've never seen a piece of commercial software that actually used an LGPL component.
    Code:
    //try
    //{
    	if (a) do { f( b); } while(1);
    	else   do { f(!b); } while(1);
    //}

  13. #13
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    No commercial GTK+ apps out there?
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  14. #14
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    LGPL is mostly a pipe dream. I've never seen a piece of commercial software that actually used an LGPL component.
    Ive used LGPL graphics libraries in commercial video processing applications before.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. anyone intimately familiar with QT?
    By m37h0d in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-10-2009, 08:01 AM
  2. QT or others for the beginning linux programmer
    By FillYourBrain in forum Linux Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-12-2003, 01:17 PM
  3. QT and external libraries
    By Quacker in forum Linux Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-08-2003, 07:02 AM
  4. problems with my first attempt at a Qt application...
    By Captain Penguin in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-01-2002, 09:14 PM
  5. First QT App
    By Troll_King in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-26-2002, 09:30 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21