To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I don't give a damn about those customers, they sell COMERCIAL APPLICATIONS not GPL, THEY HAD TO PAY A LICENSE TO AVOID GPL THERE CODE.
As someone has already pointed out; commercial and GPL are not incompatable. Red Hat sells commercial software...that is 100% covered by the GPL and other FSF-approved licences.
QT is dual licenced GPL and commercial. This is an added option, not a restriction. If you want to keep your source closed, you have a few choices;
1. Don't distribute your binary beyond one entity; the company or entity that sponsored development. (Nobody who doesn't have the binary can force the source to be given away.)
2. Trust that the people you give the binary to will never ask nor want the source. (A risk, but not unreasonable in the right situation.)
3. Pay for the right to close your source (and TrollTech's) by paying TrollTech for the right to bind your closed source binary to the TrollTech code -- making it closed source.
If you are complaining that QT isn't LGPLed or BSD/X11/... licenced ... well, you can;
* Use another library ... say, isn't GTK already available?
* Write your own QT replacement and you can licence your own code as you see fit.
Bottom line: Don't gripe about TrollTech. They are being quite reasonable. You have many choices. Exercise them.





Member since:
I'm guessing you are talking about those customers of trolltech where over 95% are more than stisfied with Qt and would recomend it. They sure know how much trolltech sucks.
I don't give a damn about those customers, they sell COMERCIAL APPLICATIONS not GPL, THEY HAD TO PAY A LICENSE TO AVOID GPL THERE CODE.
But there are developers WHO DON'T WANT TO GPL THEIR CODE and CAN'T PAY A Qt LICENSE.
Got that?
go to www.trolltech.com and complaine there.