[PyKDE] PyQwt win32 binary?
mgeras at telocity.com
Wed Jan 31 17:45:51 GMT 2001
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Phil Thompson wrote:
> Matt Gerassimoff wrote:
> > Phil, it is your choice. I'm just voicing my disappointment. The binary
> > release of PyQt was only 4 months old (since September). I'm sure you
> > knew BlackAddr was going to be release by then. The best outcome would be
> > the company that gave you the binary release should take it back and give
> > it to someone willing to maintain the PyQt binary release. As I don't own
> > any MicroSoft development software, I couldn't do it. But I would take it
> > on if someone were to provide the necessary pieces.
> I don't know what you mean by "the company that gave me the binary
> release". The company that gave me the Qt license was Trolltech. Another
> company bought me a copy of MS C++ - they wanted to make sure that the
> PyQt source would compile under Windows - at the time they were doing
> the port themselves. They weren't interested in binaries as they already
> had a commercial Qt license of their own.
You said in a privious post:
> I'll try to answer this fully - don't read anything into it that isn't
> there. These are my personal opinions, I'm not speaking for either
> theKompany or Trolltech.
> There is no single reason for deciding not to continue to release a PyQt
> binary for Windows. There were a number of influences over the
> 1. Was it legal? This isn't clear. Trolltech's licensing is, as you say,
> confusing. However, when they drew it up I guess they didn't consider
> the case where somebody would obtain a commercial Qt license and then
> give away the resulting application. Trolltech have never, either
> explicitly, implicitly, officially or unofficially, used obscene words
> like "lawyer", "court" and "make you homeless". In all my dealings with
> Trolltech (including a visit to Oslo) they have been supportive of what
> I have been doing. However that situation is unsatisfactory - what if
> somebody changed their mind, what it Microsoft bought Trolltech?
> 2. Was it against the spirit of what Trolltech intended with their
> license? Yes it was. Trolltech's view of the world is that they want a
> cut if you are selling an application that uses Qt, but don't if you are
> giving it (and the source) away. My guess is that there is an assumption
> that anybody developing Windows software is going to sell it rather than
> give it away - hence no GPLed Windows version of Qt - or maybe Windows
> people don't have the same respect for software licenses that UNIX
> people do. By using a (possible) loophole in the Qt license I was
> creating something that went against the spirit (if not the letter) of
> that license.
Then why did TrollTech give you the licence??? If you didn't buy it, but
instead they gave you a copy of Qt, then it would seem to me they
supported release. If you did buy it then you could release a binary
version based on the commercial license (even though you give your
software away for free). Since they gave you a copy of Qt for windows for
free, they must have given you some information on what you could and could
not do with it. If it was just for making sure PyQt compiles and runs under
windows, then you probably shouldn't have ever released the binary.
TrollTech didn't know you were going to release a binary version? You never
asked them? You must have got permission from somewhere. But if you didn't,
I can see why you would no longer support it and it probably should be taken
off www.thekompany.com's web site.
> > There is another possibility which may test the GPL and
> > TrollTech: Someone could build a interface to Qt for Windows without a
> > commercial license and release it GPL (which it would have to). Then
> > applications that are free, stay free. I'm not sure how that would affect
> > TrollTech but my guess is they may change there licencing in the next
> > version.
> Feel free to do whatever you want.
I was just stating an example. But thanks anyway.
More information about the PyQt