• ShestakoffVS (2/2) Aug 16 2012 Could you explicitly explain me can i use QtD bindings for
• David Nadlinger (6/8) Aug 16 2012 I am not a lawyer, but: Yes, you can, under the restriction your
• ShestakoffVS (11/19) Aug 16 2012 Thanks for your reply, David. But i didn't understand how i can
• David Nadlinger (4/7) Aug 16 2012 You can use Qt under the LGPL:
• ShestakoffVS (4/11) Aug 16 2012 David, i read about LGPL and other nokia stupid ideas and now
• Jacob Carlborg (5/7) Aug 16 2012 As far as I know you need to link dynamically to Qt to avoid the LGPL
• Russel Winder (16/23) Aug 17 2012 Can I suggest a re-phasing "proprietary code needs to dynamically link
• Jacob Carlborg (6/11) Aug 17 2012 What I meant was to avoid being forced to license your code under LGPL.
• Russel Winder (26/29) Aug 17 2012 =20
• Joseph Rushton Wakeling (16/19) Aug 17 2012 I think this is over-stating the licence requirements. The legally safe...
• Russel Winder (37/57) Aug 17 2012 ut it's=20
• Andrej Mitrovic (3/5) Aug 16 2012 Laws aren't stupid ideas. If you want to make a commercial app,
• Nick Sabalausky (3/8) Aug 16 2012 Just stupidly implemented ;)
• Russel Winder (17/19) Aug 17 2012 LGPL is not a Nokia idea and not a stupid idea either. Using LGPL

"ShestakoffVS" <shestakoffvs gmail.com> writes:

Could you explicitly explain me can i use QtD bindings for 
commercial project?

"David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> writes:

On Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 16:35:19 UTC, ShestakoffVS wrote:
 Could you explicitly explain me can i use QtD bindings for 
 commercial project?

I am not a lawyer, but: Yes, you can, under the restriction your 
Qt license mandates. The QtD libraries itself are Boost-licensed, 
it's just the generator executable (and the samples) which are 
GPL due to code carried over from QtJambi.

David

"ShestakoffVS" <shestakoffvs gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 18:24:51 UTC, David Nadlinger 
wrote:
 On Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 16:35:19 UTC, ShestakoffVS wrote:
 Could you explicitly explain me can i use QtD bindings for 
 commercial project?

 I am not a lawyer, but: Yes, you can, under the restriction 
 your Qt license mandates. The QtD libraries itself are 
 Boost-licensed, it's just the generator executable (and the 
 samples) which are GPL due to code carried over from QtJambi.

 David

Thanks for your reply, David. But i didn't understand how i can 
use qtd for commercial project if i must use qt sources (that i 
cant use in commercial project) when i'm building qtd. I think i 
can use without payment only qtd binding tehnology not qt 
sourses. Sorry about my pedantry. I want to explain why i need 
this information. I'm working with opengl within python and C, 
and now i need some more performance and i want move to D, but i 
need good GUI library. With python i used PySide it's under LGPL 
license.

"David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> writes:

On Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 19:07:20 UTC, ShestakoffVS wrote:
 But i didn't understand how i can use qtd for commercial 
 project if i must use qt sources (that i cant use in commercial 
 project) when i'm building qtd.

You can use Qt under the LGPL: 
http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing.

David

"ShestakoffVS" <shestakoffvs gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 19:11:51 UTC, David Nadlinger 
wrote:
 On Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 19:07:20 UTC, ShestakoffVS wrote:
 But i didn't understand how i can use qtd for commercial 
 project if i must use qt sources (that i cant use in 
 commercial project) when i'm building qtd.

 You can use Qt under the LGPL: 
 http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing.

 David

David, i read about LGPL and other nokia stupid ideas and now 
want to know can i staticly link my programm with qtd.

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 2012-08-16 22:32, ShestakoffVS wrote:

 David, i read about LGPL and other nokia stupid ideas and now want to
 know can i staticly link my programm with qtd.

As far as I know you need to link dynamically to Qt to avoid the LGPL 
license.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:

On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 23:04 +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 On 2012-08-16 22:32, ShestakoffVS wrote:
=20
 David, i read about LGPL and other nokia stupid ideas and now want to
 know can i staticly link my programm with qtd.

=20
 As far as I know you need to link dynamically to Qt to avoid the LGPL=20
 license.

Can I suggest a re-phasing "proprietary code needs to dynamically link
to Qt to comply with the LGPL". To avoid the LGPL with Qt you need to
buy a commercial Qt licence.

Applications that are themselves LGPL or GPL can dynamically or
statically link to LGPL libraries.=20

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 2012-08-17 09:55, Russel Winder wrote:

 Can I suggest a re-phasing "proprietary code needs to dynamically link
 to Qt to comply with the LGPL". To avoid the LGPL with Qt you need to
 buy a commercial Qt licence.

 Applications that are themselves LGPL or GPL can dynamically or
 statically link to LGPL libraries.

What I meant was to avoid being forced to license your code under LGPL. 
It's not just for proprietary code, there are also other open source 
licenses which are not compatible with GPL.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:

On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 11:37 +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
[=E2=80=A6]
 What I meant was to avoid being forced to license your code under LGPL.=

=20
 It's not just for proprietary code, there are also other open source=20
 licenses which are not compatible with GPL.

Indeed.

Sadly though, licences such as ASL 2.0, MIT, BSD, etc. allow the
unscrupulous to use and make proprietary versions of codebases and
continue to make use of updates provided for free by unpaid volunteers,
whilst making money from their proprietary version.  The permissive
licences are fine for established codebases, e.g. Groovy, where there is
no realistic opportunity for successful bad behaviour. For smaller, less
well established codebases, it is possible and known to have happened.
The strategy seems then to use LGPL as a FOSS start up and then
relicence to a more permissive licence once you have a reasonable sized
user base that protects against bas behaviour.=20

None of this applies to systems that are necessarily distributed as
source, for that case a whole different set of factors applies.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net> writes:

On 17/08/12 08:55, Russel Winder wrote:
 Can I suggest a re-phasing "proprietary code needs to dynamically link
 to Qt to comply with the LGPL". To avoid the LGPL with Qt you need to
 buy a commercial Qt licence.

I think this is over-stating the licence requirements.  The legally safest 
option is certainly to dynamically link against the LGPL-licensed code, but
it's 
not an explicitly-stated _requirement_ of the licence.

The requirements are that the recipient of the program must be able to link it 
to a newer version of the LGPL-licensed part.  That could be achieved through 
dynamic linking, or it could be achieved through distributing object files
along 
with the program.  (You could also distribute source code, but since this is 
what's trying to be avoided here it's not a solution.)

Qt recommends dynamic linking because it can't be guaranteed that some legal 
jurisdictions wouldn't interpret a statically-linked program as a "derivative 
work" of the LGPL-licensed code, thus falling under its copyleft provisions. 
However, such an interpretation is almost certainly not in line with the 
licence's intentions.

It might be worth contacting the Software Freedom Law Center for advice on
these 
points: https://www.softwarefreedom.org/

Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:

On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 13:06 +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
 On 17/08/12 08:55, Russel Winder wrote:
 Can I suggest a re-phasing "proprietary code needs to dynamically link
 to Qt to comply with the LGPL". To avoid the LGPL with Qt you need to
 buy a commercial Qt licence.

=20
 I think this is over-stating the licence requirements.  The legally safes=

t=20
 option is certainly to dynamically link against the LGPL-licensed code, b=

ut it's=20
 not an explicitly-stated _requirement_ of the licence.

This is true. About a decade ago I took legal advice regarding GPL, LGPL
and various scenarios. The problem was that there was very little case
law to give solidity to any interpretation of the licences and the law
surrounding them.  Taking a defensive view is thus the safest way
forward.

 The requirements are that the recipient of the program must be able to li=

nk it=20
 to a newer version of the LGPL-licensed part.  That could be achieved thr=

ough=20
 dynamic linking, or it could be achieved through distributing object file=

s along=20
 with the program.  (You could also distribute source code, but since this=

 is=20
 what's trying to be avoided here it's not a solution.)

We also thought about this interpretation of compliance, but it leads to
dangerous doubts for end user products. OK for software tools where the
end user is themselves in the software business.
=20
 Qt recommends dynamic linking because it can't be guaranteed that some le=

gal=20
 jurisdictions wouldn't interpret a statically-linked program as a "deriva=

tive=20
 work" of the LGPL-licensed code, thus falling under its copyleft provisio=

ns.=20
 However, such an interpretation is almost certainly not in line with the=

=20
 licence's intentions.

The core problem here is no case law and no international agreements. So
"derivative work", "linking", "dynamic" and "static" are all legally
undefined in this contexts in many jurisdictions. Worse I bet there are
very few computer literate folk working in jurisprudence.

 It might be worth contacting the Software Freedom Law Center for advice o=

n these=20
 points: https://www.softwarefreedom.org/

But the problem is that they are USA centric. Or are they taking on more
people internationally now?

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:

On 8/16/12, ShestakoffVS <shestakoffvs gmail.com> wrote:
 David, i read about LGPL and other nokia stupid ideas and now
 want to know can i staticly link my programm with qtd.

Laws aren't stupid ideas. If you want to make a commercial app,
regardless of any libraries, you better have a lawyer.

Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 23:15:14 +0200
Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote:

 On 8/16/12, ShestakoffVS <shestakoffvs gmail.com> wrote:
 David, i read about LGPL and other nokia stupid ideas and now
 want to know can i staticly link my programm with qtd.

 
 Laws aren't stupid ideas. 

Just stupidly implemented ;)

Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:

On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 22:32 +0200, ShestakoffVS wrote:
[=E2=80=A6]
 David, i read about LGPL and other nokia stupid ideas and now=20
 want to know can i staticly link my programm with qtd.

LGPL is not a Nokia idea and not a stupid idea either. Using LGPL
libraries you can write proprietary code and dynamically link to the
version of the LGPL code the end user installs. If you want to
statically link proprietary code to Qt then buy a commercial licence for
Qt. The price of the Qt licence just becomes part of your BoM.
--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder