Subject:
Re: Why Microwin
From:
Jordan Crouse ####@####.####
Date:
21 Feb 2001 15:32:20 -0000
Message-Id: <3A93E0C5.D55709CA@censoft.com>
I agree that QT has yet to prove that it's business model is sound.
Sometimes it is just easier to close certain parts of the source, and
risk
annoying the open source community rather than open it all up, and try
to police all the abuses of your license. Thats alot of revenue lost
as you run to court every time a gray area pops up. Of course, QT has
managed to make it very hard to slip a single program in a distribution,
since they require an extensive runtime system from top to bottom, so I
am sure that that makes abuses of the license easier to spot.
Now that Linux has become more popular, and especially since it has
really become a force in the embedded / PDA world, we are going to see
more of this happening. Now, all of a sudden, two worlds are clashing,
the open source world that gave life to the Linux revolution, and the
money that will make sure that it it continues to exist. The question
remains: how do we make money off our really good code while at the
same time making sure that it stays open to public innovation. If
anyone has a fail-safe answer to that question, please respond
immediately!
Anyway, I should get off my soap box. Thanks for your support with
Microwindows, FLNX and ViewML.
Keep on hacking!
Jordan
John Waldron wrote:
>
> I think what is interesting about QT's stance is that with these multiple
> licenses, they can basically charge anyone who makes money from shipping
> their product, potentially.
>
> Most product developers wouldn't use entirely GPL'd code because of having
> to release their source to their customers (and potentially their
> competetors). Therefore, they would take advantage of dynamic modules, LGPL
> libs and the like to protect their "IP". What will be interesting to see is
> whether or not this strategy works for QT. My personal belief is that those
> people who develop products on Linux do so for at least one very important
> reason: NO Run-Time cost while still keeping their IP safe.
>
> I am sure that some folks will GPL all their code because they are trying to
> move HW, but others will not and I do not believe that those people will
> tolerate a run-time royalty and, voila! Microwindows/Nano-X to the rescue!
>
> John
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Wehrli" ####@####.####
> To: "Nanogui (E-mail)" ####@####.####
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 10:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Why Microwin
>
> > Andreas Pour wrote:
> > >
> > > John Waldron wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What are the royalties (if any) associated with QT?
> > >
> > > Qt Embedded and the Q Palmtop Environment are GPL'd, so as long as you
> > > don't send out any proprietary GUI apps there are no royalties.
> > >
> > > If you plan to use proprietary GUI apps there is a per-developer fee,
> > > details at http://www.trolltech.com/products/purchase/pricingemb.html.
> >
> > What follows is a Trolltech response to my direct request regarding this
> > very issue.
> >
> > .....
> >
> > Qt/Embedded is licensed both under a commercial license and under GPL
> > (the socalled Free Edition). The versions are identical code-wise. The
> > only difference is in the licensing. We provide Open Source developers
> > with the same high-quality tools as the commercial developers get.
> >
> > This means that you can develop Qt/Embedded software free of charge if
> > the software you develop is also released under the GPL license (thus
> > open source). Furthermore, as long as the device you install this
> > software on is only delivered with GPL'ed software you can also use
> > Qt/Embedded on the device without purchasing runtime licenses.
> >
> > In case you develop closed source software for your organization or
> > another customer, we can offer you commercial development licenses and
> > runtime licenses for the end devices. If you develop GPL'ed software for
> > a device which also is delivered with closed source software, the device
> > needs runtime licenses for Qt/Embedded.
> >
> > Commercial customers will benefit from professional support and services
> > and will not be restricted by the GPL licensing conditions.
> >
> > .....
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dre
> > >
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> >
> >
> > Note that this says that as long as ALL of the software on the device is
> > GPLed, then you're OK...
> >
> > Our MyLinux Pocket Linux Workstation project uses only 100% GPLd
> > software and other GPL-like licenses for things such as
> > NanoZilla...etc...so we're clear in terms of this response, however, my
> > reading of the GPL isn't exactly this way. I probably need to re-read
> > the GPL to see if I can gleem anything new regarding this specific
> > point, but at least you now have this response from Trolltech...besides,
> > we're currently using mostly Microwin/Nanox for now, anyway :)
> >
> >
> > Take Care.
> >
> > Rob!
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> > For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
