20 years of Qt
From the beginning, Qt has been released with both open source and commercial licensing options. Over the years, we have worked on expanding this model, and nowadays, Qt is actually developed as an open source project. In this sense Qt is actually in a rather unique position, having a strong ecosystem with passionate people, as well as a commercial entity behind it, which backs up and funds most of the development."
Posted May 20, 2015 17:17 UTC (Wed)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (31 responses)
But just for the record, before 2000 Qt was neither free software nor open source. Here's the licence:
https://web.archive.org/web/19990129004035/http://www.tro...
"If you want to use Qt for developing commercial/proprietary software, you must use the Qt Professional Edition ... The Qt Free Edition is limited to use with the X Window System. ... You may copy this version of the Qt Free Edition provided that the entire archive is distributed unchanged and as a whole"
This is not a reason to hold a grudge against Qt today. The maturity and progress of Qt really is something to be celebrated. Just correcting a factual error.
Posted May 20, 2015 18:33 UTC (Wed)
by josh (subscriber, #17465)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 26, 2015 9:51 UTC (Tue)
by knuty (guest, #43295)
[Link]
Regarding Qts license history, Richard Stallman wrote an article about selling exceptions in 2010. The article explains[1] FSFs views on that regarding MySQL, Qt and other software systems. If you include the Wikipedia article on the Qt Project[2], I think you get the picture on how Qt got GPL-ed 15 years ago. The last important change was the move to open up the Qt development with open governance in 2011, also explained in the Wikipedia article.
1. https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions
Posted May 20, 2015 19:06 UTC (Wed)
by Karellen (subscriber, #67644)
[Link] (28 responses)
From the page you linked to, after a couple of clicks, we get to the Download Qt Free Edition page: Looks open source to me.
Posted May 20, 2015 19:19 UTC (Wed)
by josh (subscriber, #17465)
[Link] (27 responses)
Posted May 20, 2015 19:50 UTC (Wed)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted May 20, 2015 20:17 UTC (Wed)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
Posted May 20, 2015 23:34 UTC (Wed)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted May 20, 2015 23:39 UTC (Wed)
by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562)
[Link] (6 responses)
> I would expect people on LWN to know these kinds of things...
Weee!
Posted May 21, 2015 0:01 UTC (Thu)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted May 21, 2015 1:50 UTC (Thu)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted May 22, 2015 6:30 UTC (Fri)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted May 22, 2015 18:55 UTC (Fri)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
If they had not been slapped down in court (and by IBM) the way they were, they would have made the kernel non-free
Microsoft has effectively make Android non-free at this point in that they are making more money from their Android Patent shakedown than they are from Mobile Windows.
but there is a substantial difference between third parties like Microsoft making statements and the copyright owners/developers making statements. The latter case is much more significant.
Posted May 25, 2015 10:43 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Cheers,
Posted May 21, 2015 12:51 UTC (Thu)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
It was very surprising (and disappointing) to me when I first heard that. I thought that that clear technical boundaries would be meaningful to the law. That, e.g., the case where A was using B via function calls was clearly different enough to say a case where A was using B via message passing and that this would make a difference to the lawyers. However, the lawyers (corporate counsel) didn't really care about that.
I've since spoken to a different lawyer about this manner of them looking at software at a much more abstract level, potentially ignoring the technical details that seem important to programmers. That lawyer told that that is what they are trained to do, and that that is what the courts will do.
Posted May 20, 2015 20:14 UTC (Wed)
by halla (subscriber, #14185)
[Link] (13 responses)
The invention of the term "Open Source" dates back to 1998; in 1995 when Qt was released, releasing your source out into the open meant you could say "our source is open" with impunity.
Posted May 20, 2015 20:20 UTC (Wed)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted May 20, 2015 20:51 UTC (Wed)
by halla (subscriber, #14185)
[Link] (6 responses)
It also has nothing to do with historical accuracy: historical accurate is that Qt was open source by the definitions of the time when it was released. Anything else is revisionist nonsense.
Posted May 20, 2015 21:31 UTC (Wed)
by roc (subscriber, #30627)
[Link] (1 responses)
When someone reads "From the beginning, Qt has been released with both open source and commercial licensing options" they will naturally interpret that statement using today's definition of "open source". Whether or not the statement is technically accurate according to 20 years ago's definition of open source is irrelevant; most readers won't be using that interpretation and therefore the text is misleading.
Anyway, the interpretation of "open source" here to mean just a source release doesn't make sense. A source release cannot be considered an "open source licensing option". And "from the beginning" implies continuity from the beginning until now, and "source releases available from the beginning until now" misrepresents the situation almost as much as "open source licensing available from the beginning until now".
But yes, very petty :-).
Posted May 20, 2015 22:07 UTC (Wed)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
My link gives the licence used until late 1999. "Open source" was defined in February 1998. So it wasn't open source in 1998 and 1999 according to how the term was used in 1998 and 1999.
Historical accuracy is important (not petty) because the story of Qt and the GNU projects Harmony and GNOME is an important part of the history of free software:
Posted May 21, 2015 12:40 UTC (Thu)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
Posted May 21, 2015 17:22 UTC (Thu)
by rfontana (subscriber, #52677)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted May 21, 2015 17:43 UTC (Thu)
by sfeam (subscriber, #2841)
[Link] (1 responses)
Goolgle Ngrams shows a low level of usage throughout the 1960s, followed by a steep increase in use starting about 1974. Use of "free software" took off in 1980, with a concomitant decrease use of the earlier term. Then "open source" became popular again in 1995, which curiously is several years prior to the push by the Open Source Initiative.
Posted May 21, 2015 19:32 UTC (Thu)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link]
Posted May 25, 2015 11:15 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (3 responses)
No it's not.
THE SOURCE IS OPEN. Which is why I always use capitals when I'm talking about stuff that matches the OSI definition. Because - if the words mean what they are supposed to mean - ANY and ALL software provided in source form (regardless of licence) is "open source" - the source is open for you to look at! That's what the words meant back then, and it really doesn't help matters when people try to change what words mean.
English is enough of a mess with too many words and not enough understanding as to what they mean, without people trying to retrospectively rewrite the dictionary ... (and there are enough of those :-(
Cheers,
Posted May 25, 2015 15:52 UTC (Mon)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (2 responses)
If someone applied that rule while reading English, their head would be full of ridiculous ideas.
Posted May 25, 2015 22:19 UTC (Mon)
by cesarb (subscriber, #6266)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 25, 2015 23:01 UTC (Mon)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
Posted May 23, 2015 12:44 UTC (Sat)
by mgedmin (subscriber, #34497)
[Link]
Posted May 20, 2015 20:18 UTC (Wed)
by suy (guest, #81959)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 20, 2015 21:53 UTC (Wed)
by josh (subscriber, #17465)
[Link]
You could say that, and perhaps by the standards of 20 years ago you might be right, but by today's standards that's highly disingenuous.
> So yeah, it is partly incorrect in the most strict sense, but let's just agree that summarizing the 20 years of history of Qt with its many changes in licensing is really hard, and abuses of the language are reasonable. :)
"Qt is 20 years old! Qt is widely used, Open Source ..."
Any number of phrasings would convey that Qt is 20 years old today and that Qt is *currently* available under an Open Source license, without having to get into the historical notes.
Posted May 21, 2015 6:57 UTC (Thu)
by Karellen (subscriber, #67644)
[Link]
Also, and I know I'm defensively grasping at straws here, but I make a distinction when reading between "open source" and "Open Source", as well as between "free software" (which I read as gratis) and "Free Software".
Posted May 21, 2015 16:32 UTC (Thu)
by xnox (guest, #63320)
[Link] (2 responses)
"From the beginning, Qt has been released with both open source and commercial licensing options. Over the years, we have worked on expanding this model, and nowadays, Qt is actually developed as an open source project. "
the "and nowadays, ... actually" is a clear indication that back in the day it was mumbo-jumbo =) but by today's definitions it's all good and open-sourcery.
Posted May 21, 2015 18:37 UTC (Thu)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link] (1 responses)
(Of course, we can also argue about the "open source" licence employed in former times, but given that the GNOME project was originally motivated by a reaction to the Qt licensing of the day, perhaps the only conclusion to be drawn is that "open source" is not a very reliable label, especially given the widespread misuse and misappropriation going on around it.)
Posted May 25, 2015 11:29 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
One only has to look at all the projects that started out as open source and not Free Software. The obvious one is linux :-) To that I'd add SuSE (with the YaST licence - almost the same as the original linux licence ...)
It's just as bad as all the arguments about "free" :-) - do you mean libre, do you mean gratis, do you mean freedom for the developer, do you mean freedom for the user, ...
And then, don't forget, a LOT of software developers aren't American - the American viewpoint is heavily influenced by the fact that many developers (the older ones) can remember a time when pretty much all software was Public Domain. Us Europeans have NEVER known a time like that. So for you, until the early 80s, "Free" (as in "the four freedoms") and "open source" (as in the source was available to read) were pretty much the same thing legally. That's why the FSF was founded - the legal framework was rewritten!
At the end of the day, if you aren't prepared to learn your history, and look at things IN THEIR HISTORICAL CONTEXT, you will never be able to understand what REALLY happened.
Cheers,
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_Project
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
The Qt Free Edition is distributed in tar format on the following download sites. The archive contains the complete source code of the library and extensions with full reference documentation.
(emphasis mine)
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
MySQL used the GPL. You can of course use GPL'ed code in your own product, even in a commercial product. You just may have to make your product GPL, too.
For customers who didn't want that, MySQL offered their commercial license.
At no time were you required to buy a MySQL license for your commercial product, as long as you complied with the terms of the GPL.
I would expect people on LWN to know these kinds of things...
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Wol
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
When Qt was released, it wasn't Free Software by the definition the FSF used back then, and its source was open by the definition everyone used back then.
Uhm, "by the definition everyone used back then" is an assertion too far. There were certainly enough people who did not view as sufficiently open to help motivate the creation of GNOME in response.
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
The term "open source" (wrt software) was not in use at that time
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
That plot shows a fair amount of use in the 1860's. Remember that "open source" has meanings outside of the software realm; in particular, it has long been used in intelligence-gathering circles.
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Wol
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
Happy 15th birthday, free Qt
20 years of Qt
20 years of Qt
20 years of Qt
Wol