Posted Jan 28, 2008 12:54 UTC (Mon) by alonso (subscriber, #2828)
In reply to: Fork Qt by markc
Parent article: Nokia to acquire Trolltech
Dont't forget this(more information at http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php):
KDE Free Qt Foundation
The KDE Free Qt Foundation is an organization founded by Trolltech and the KDE e.V. in 1998
with the purpose of securing the availability of the Qt toolkit for the development of Free
Software and in particular for the development of the K Desktop Environment (KDE).
To fulfil the purpose of the Foundation, an agreement between Trolltech and the Foundation was
made. This gives the Foundation the right to release Qt under a BSD-style license in case
Trolltech doesn't continue the development of the Qt Free Edition for any reason including,
but not limited to, a buy-out of Trolltech, a merger or bankruptcy.
In May 2004 an updated agreement was made. This new agreement replaces the original one from
June 1998 by adapting it to the current situation and providing new text which addresses the
problem in a more precise and complete way. The intention and basic content however, are still
the same.
The board of the Foundation consists of two members from Trolltech and two members from KDE
e.V. Decisions of the Foundation are taken by vote of the board members. In case of a tie the
votes of the KDE representatives decide.
The KDE e.V. appointed as board members of the KDE Free Qt Foundation the following people:
Martin Konold
Olaf Schmidt
The current voting members from Trolltech (elected by the Trolltech general assembly) are:
Eirik Eng
Haavard Nord
Posted Jan 28, 2008 18:31 UTC (Mon) by Duncan (guest, #6647)
[Link]
> http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php
You beat me to it! =8^)
What that amount(ed|s) to (was|is) a "poison-pill", to be activated in
case of hostile takeover and attempt to take Qt proprietary. Anyone that
tried it, either trying to delay or weaken the free version as opposed to
the proprietary one, or cutting off releases entirely, would trigger the
release of the code under a BSD style license, thus losing the ability to
demand payment for the proprietary version as the code under the BSD
license, /unlike/ the current GPL (now (2|3) dual) license as
proprietaryware developers would be free to pick up and use the BSD code
at zero license cost instead.
So Nokia really has no choice but to continue the free Qt, unless they
simply drop it entirely and let it go BSD -- but that's one particular
advantage of FLOSS already, that if the sponsoring company drops the
product, the community can pick it up and continue development as they
have the code and the license to do so -- this arrangement just
poison-pilled any attempt to take it 100% proprietary since doing so would
release the code that brings in the money on the proprietary side!
It's also worth noting that Haavard Nord, Trolltech CEO, credited KDE for
bringing in "almost half of their customers" (
http://dot.kde.org/1200788475/ ). Thus, unless Nokia's going to simply
abandon Qt to the BSD style license as above, it'd make little sense for
them to do anything to hurt that relationship.
Finally, it should be pointed out that this will have been in the works
for some time. All the recent activities including the KDE/Trolltech
partnership on Photon, now being integrated into Qt as well as KDE while
still in the KDE repository and under nominal KDE control, must have at
minimum not been something Nokia would have vetoed. They'd have also
needed to approve the move of Qt to GPLv3, and the GPLing of all Qt
platforms including the MS side, not just the X side of things. In
particular, note the specificity of the patent guarantee language in the
GPLv3 -- unless Nokia intends to directly attack the GPLv3 itself, that's
significant given their earlier history (see below).
All that said, there's some serious mixed-messages going on here, and
Nokia has anything but a friendly history toward FLOSS, particularly with
their pro-software patent work in Europe during the recent software patent
push there, and their anti-Ogg pro-proprietary/pro-DRM position in regard
to HTML-5. Are they going to be another Sony, now, with one very
pro-FLOSS side and another very anti-freedom side, different departments
of the same umbrella corp, or another Sun, who had the same problem for
many years tho it seems to be coming out more pro-freedom recently, or
another SCO or MS, with the light side of the force entirely absorbed, for
practical purposes anyway, into the dark side?
In any case, as always seems to be the case in the FLOSS community,
there's always something interesting going on, and this year it's the
Nokia/Trolltech thing. How it'll ultimately turn out remains to be seen,
but there's certainly comfort to be had in both the GPLv2/v3 thing, and
the KDEFreeQTFoundation (which BTW Nokia has reaffirmed) thing. One way
or another, if the freedomware community isn't happy with where Nokia
takes things, we *DO* still have the code to work with, something that'd
NOT be the case with proprietaryware. For that code and the freedom to
use it, AND for the additional specific patent assurances we now have
under the GPLv3 which Qt is now licensed under, we can be thankful! =8^)
Maybe Nokia IS trying to turn over a new leaf, or maybe they've got
something else up their sleeve. Regardless, time will tell.
Duncan
Why BSD?
Posted Jan 29, 2008 3:31 UTC (Tue) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054)
[Link]
Since Qt is GPLed, why worry about BSDing it? Is this to provide an equivalent to buying a non-GPL license from Trolltech? I'd appreciate hearing from anyone with the real scoop.
Why BSD?
Posted Jan 29, 2008 6:16 UTC (Tue) by felixfix (subscriber, #242)
[Link]
Because the BSD license allows binaries to be distributed without also distributing the code.
The BSD license is friendlier to companies that want to add proprietary changes to the code
without having to release them for their competition to pick up for free.
There are many many people who hate the BSD license for this, and many many who despise the
GPL for not having this. Regardless of that particular flame war, that is the difference, and
that is why the BSD license *in this case* is seen as a poison pill to keep the code base
under the GPL.