[Ctk-developers] Qt licenses model

[Will Schroeder]

Maybe this wasn't clear, but if possible use a OSI-compliant license, not a
modified BSD. This makes it possible to seek funding or respond to
technology requests (since I believe an OSI-compliant license can be a
pre-condition to engagement, it also gives a sense of authoratative approval
which warms some people's hearts). We thought about gaining OSI approval for
VTK's original license but eventually just adopted a standard BSD.
Will

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Tarbox, Lawrence <tarboxl at mir.wustl.edu>wrote:

> I think the reason that the Qt Software folks (now owned by Nokia) left the
> GPL option in is for the benefit of some of their partners who were writing
> GPL code (or dual-licensed GPL/Commercial code) back in the days when Qt
> Software was TrollTech.  Some of those partners have made
> additions/modifications to Qt, released them under GPL, and do not want to
> ever release them under LGPL.  While technically they could still release
> their additions/modifications under GPL even though Qt is LGPL (i.e., LGPL
> allows it), these partners prefer to keep their licensing straight forward,
> and just say the whole combined mess is GPL.  Qt Software is merely saying
> formally that Qt Software is OK with that model, basically reaffirming their
> partners' right to continue releasing modified versions of Qt under GPL.
>
> At least that is the impression that I get.
>
> I don't think that there is a problem with release our software under a
> modified BSD license, as long as we are only linking to Qt, and not
> modifying Qt code directly (i.e., one could switch to a Qt clone, if it
> existed, or to a modified version of Qt by simply rebuilding against a
> different link library).
>
> If we do modify the Qt code itself, then those modifications would have to
> be released as LGPL.  Of course, if we modify Qt itself, I would vote for
> feeding those modifications back to the Qt community for potential
> incorporation into a future release of Qt.
>
> Lawrence
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org [mailto:
> ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org] On Behalf Of Marco Viceconti
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 3:44 AM
> To: ctk-developers at commontk.org
> Subject: [Ctk-developers] Qt licenses model
>
> I would like to open another discussion thread, parallel to the one we
> started on Qt core.  Currently Qt is available under two possible open
> source licenses: Qt GNU LGPL v. 2.1 and Qt GNU GPL v. 3.0.
> http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing
>
> If I understand correctly the code is the same, the access rules are
> the same, so I am not sure why one would choose GPL which is more
> restrictive than LGPL.  Can someone clarify this to me?
>
> Secondly, having agreed that CTK will be BSD-like, can anyone confirm
> me that by using a LGPL library to develop CTK we shall not break the
> BSD-like license we plan to adopt?
>
> Thanks
>
> Marco
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> MARCO VICECONTI, PhD
> (viceconti at tecno.ior.it)
> Laboratorio di Tecnologia Medica              tel.   39-051-6366865
> Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli                            fax.
> 39-051-6366863
> via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136 - Bologna, Italy
>
> Tiger! Tiger! Burning bright in the forest of the night,
> what immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry?
> --------------------------------------------------
> Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of my employer
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ctk-developers mailing list
> Ctk-developers at commontk.org
> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers
>
> The material in this message is private and may contain Protected
> Healthcare Information (PHI).  If you are not the intended recipient, be
> advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any
> action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
> prohibited.  If you have received this email in error, please immediately
> notify the sender via telephone or return mail.
> _______________________________________________
> Ctk-developers mailing list
> Ctk-developers at commontk.org
> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers
>



-- 
William J. Schroeder, PhD
Kitware, Inc.
28 Corporate Drive
Clifton Park, NY 12065
will.schroeder at kitware.com
http://www.kitware.com
(518) 881-4902
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/ctk-developers/attachments/20091112/f6a0a70f/attachment.htm>