Active Topics
-
Maemo repository (4)
to Community by teroyk - 14 hrs, 13 mins ago -
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (13)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 1 day, 20 hrs ago -
TLS 1.2 for N9 is ready (29)
to MeeGo / Harmattan by smatkovi - 2 days, 5 hrs ago -
Camera phone competition March 2023 "Endless" (35)
to General by Maemish - 5 days, 14 hrs ago - more...
|
2010-09-20
, 12:30
|
|
Posts: 999 |
Thanked: 1,117 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ earth?
|
#2
|
One of the conditions of the GPL license that the source code must be made available publically (e.g. something like an ftp website or cdrom) - if you release the program publically.
You can charge as much as you like for the "binary" (e.g. the executable).
You can charge a nominal fee to distribute the source code if it is on a fixed media (e.g. tape or disk).
If you incorporate your own source code into GPL source code then your source code falls under the GPL license too.
The Lesser-GPL (LGPL) allow you to link things like your external libaries into a GPL-licensed program without your external library falling under the GPL.
QT is under a duel-license - GPL and QT-license.
If you write a gpl-license program under QT you do not have to pay any license fees.
If you write a closed-source program under QT a fee is payable.
That's how I understand things - best got advice from www.gnu.org licenses , faq
(I may visit it myself and make sure)
Last edited by johnel; 2010-09-20 at 12:35.
You can charge as much as you like for the "binary" (e.g. the executable).
You can charge a nominal fee to distribute the source code if it is on a fixed media (e.g. tape or disk).
If you incorporate your own source code into GPL source code then your source code falls under the GPL license too.
The Lesser-GPL (LGPL) allow you to link things like your external libaries into a GPL-licensed program without your external library falling under the GPL.
QT is under a duel-license - GPL and QT-license.
If you write a gpl-license program under QT you do not have to pay any license fees.
If you write a closed-source program under QT a fee is payable.
That's how I understand things - best got advice from www.gnu.org licenses , faq
(I may visit it myself and make sure)
__________________
I like cake.
I like cake.
Last edited by johnel; 2010-09-20 at 12:35.
| The Following User Says Thank You to johnel For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-09-20
, 12:41
|
|
Posts: 2,802 |
Thanked: 4,491 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
|
#3
|
Originally Posted by erniadeldesktop
Are you talking about modifying and redistributing GPL/LGPL code, or just writing your own app that uses GPL or LGPL libraries?
main point is of course the old good LGPL vs GPL software.
I would like to see if I get the right picture, and introduce who's unaware to some short explanation about licensing:
- Who uses GPLed sources for his projects has to distribute under gpl.
- Who uses LGPL can afterwards distribute under the same LGPL, increasing to GPL or pay for the commercial licensing for commercial distribution.
if I develop with QT, (lgpl) i should distribute my software for free under LGPL or GPL.
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lma For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2010-09-20
, 12:47
|
|
Posts: 1,391 |
Thanked: 4,272 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#4
|
Originally Posted by erniadeldesktop
As Qt doesn't work on the iPhone, have you thought about distributing your app as open source for non-iPhone platforms and as closed source for iPhone? Distributing the Qt "port" of your app as open source does not "infect" the iPhone version of your app with the same license (assuming that you wrote all the code yourself, you can decide under which terms you offer each port). That's how the author of Brain Party has done it (proprietary version for the iPhone with an open source port to Linux).
please some license guru, confirm or correct... 'couse I was dreaming about distributing for free the same app here and sell it for the Iphones. and this shall not be. (right?)
You can of course release your app closed-source for both Qt-based platforms and the iPhone - no problem there
Read that page and your questions shall be answered: http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing/
(basically, with the LGPL'd version of Qt, you can have closed source code when you link to Qt dynamically IIRC - but IANAL)
Last edited by thp; 2010-09-20 at 12:48. Reason: ..assuming that you wrote the code yourself..
| The Following User Says Thank You to thp For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-09-20
, 12:51
|
|
Posts: 1,341 |
Thanked: 708 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#5
|
Just to clarify, because I think there was contradiction in previous posts.
Isn't Qt LGPL'ed, so if one makes commercial program which uses Qt and sells it, it is ok, free and one can choose whatever license one wants? Except, if the library (Qt) itself is developed futher and sold for example as Qt^2.
Isn't Qt LGPL'ed, so if one makes commercial program which uses Qt and sells it, it is ok, free and one can choose whatever license one wants? Except, if the library (Qt) itself is developed futher and sold for example as Qt^2.
|
|
2010-09-20
, 13:24
|
|
Posts: 2,802 |
Thanked: 4,491 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
|
#6
|
Originally Posted by zimon
The following are all ok (shorthand: GPL == GPLv3, LGPL == LGPLv2.1 in Qt context):
Just to clarify, because I think there was contradiction in previous posts.
Isn't Qt LGPL'ed, so if one makes commercial program which uses Qt and sells it, it is ok, free and one can choose whatever license one wants? Except, if the library (Qt) itself is developed futher and sold for example as Qt^2.
- Writing and distributing a closed-source app that's dynamically linked with Qt (using either a commercial or LGPL Qt licence).
- Writing and distributing a closed-source app that's statically linked with and/or includes Qt (using a commercial Qt licence).
- Writing and distributing an open-source app (any GPL/LGPL-compatible licence) that's dynamically linked with Qt.
- Modifying Qt for your own personal use (any Qt licence).
The following is not ok:
- Modifying and redistributing Qt with any licence other than GPL or LGPL.
Note also that source code licence and binary price are orthogonal, it's perfectly fine to sell GPL apps for $$$, as it is to give away closed-source binaries for free.
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to lma For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-09-20
, 13:50
|
|
Posts: 161 |
Thanked: 85 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#7
|
Originally Posted by lma
thanks! this is exactly what I was looking for!!
Note also that source code licence and binary price are orthogonal, it's perfectly fine to sell GPL apps for $$$, as it is to give away closed-source binaries for free.
so let's go to the second point:
What about the software ideas? the only way to protect them is patenting? or there's something else?ie: let's say that my app has e a new way to access the contacts, or a new way to handle emails. What could I do?
|
|
2010-09-20
, 14:17
|
|
Posts: 999 |
Thanked: 1,117 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ earth?
|
#8
|
Software patents cost an enormous amount of money and there is no guarantee you will get the patent.
Only large companies like Microsoft, Apple and Google can afford to patent their software algorithms and even then it depends how much a country will enforce them.
I imagine the cost of patenting an idea must run into thousands pounds.
Found this in a UK-based business forum:
Generally, Software patents are a "Bad Thing"
Last edited by johnel; 2010-09-20 at 14:20.
Only large companies like Microsoft, Apple and Google can afford to patent their software algorithms and even then it depends how much a country will enforce them.
I imagine the cost of patenting an idea must run into thousands pounds.
Found this in a UK-based business forum:
With respect, the question you should be asking is "how much does it cost to defend a patent?"
I recently attended a presentation entitled "so you think you want a patent" by a leading IP Barrister - it was real eye opener!! and has pretty much put me off ever seeking patent protection!! unless you've got a £150,000+ to back up any potential infringement or IP insurance you are probably wasting your time and money. In my view a patent - for most people - is a ticket for guaranteed future distress and expense. Its the lawyers that rub their hands with glee whenever a patent is granted. There is a very high risk that if you took an infringer to court, the infringer would claim that your patent should never have been granted in the first place - and there is an equally likely chance that the courts would agree and your patent would be taken away - just like that!
There is a well respected Barrister - Jane Lambert who presently has a book at the publishers which you should buy when available!! it'll open you eyes too!!
__________________
I like cake.
I like cake.
Last edited by johnel; 2010-09-20 at 14:20.
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to johnel For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-09-20
, 14:28
|
|
Posts: 2,802 |
Thanked: 4,491 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
|
#9
|
Your code itself is automatically protected by copyright regardless of the licence (unless you explicitly place it in the public domain).
As for the ideas behind it, yes a patent would be the only way to restrict others from using them.
A software patent application may not be something you really want to go through though: it's not possible to get in many places, time consuming & expensive, and it may turn out that the required patent search (which in itself can be quite expensive as well) will turn up that your brand new idea actually has "prior art" implementations. Not to mention that many people believe software patents are evil ;-)
Note also that the GPLv3 has some additional requirements regarding patents, you should read them and understand them before deciding if it's suitable for your needs.
As for the ideas behind it, yes a patent would be the only way to restrict others from using them.
A software patent application may not be something you really want to go through though: it's not possible to get in many places, time consuming & expensive, and it may turn out that the required patent search (which in itself can be quite expensive as well) will turn up that your brand new idea actually has "prior art" implementations. Not to mention that many people believe software patents are evil ;-)
Note also that the GPLv3 has some additional requirements regarding patents, you should read them and understand them before deciding if it's suitable for your needs.
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lma For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-09-20
, 20:04
|
|
Posts: 161 |
Thanked: 85 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#10
|
Originally Posted by lma
wait.. I've just read in the GPL faqs that I can sell my crap, but if some of the buyers want to distribute it for free he can.
Note also that source code licence and binary price are orthogonal, it's perfectly fine to sell GPL apps for $$$, as it is to give away closed-source binaries for free.
I feel kind of disappointed.. but ok...
so what is the best way to avoid getting my idea on "iphones" or on MS whatever?
main point is of course the old good LGPL vs GPL software.
I would like to see if I get the right picture, and introduce who's unaware to some short explanation about licensing:
- Who uses GPLed sources for his projects has to distribute under gpl.
- Who uses LGPL can afterwards distribute under the same LGPL, increasing to GPL or pay for the commercial licensing for commercial distribution.
I'm right?
So couple of examples:
if I develop with QT, (lgpl) i should distribute my software for free under LGPL or GPL. If I'm willing to SELL it on OVI, or Android Market, there's no other way than paying for the commercial license.
If I use GPLed sources, i should provide them also with my sources code. And this is mandatory!!!
please some license guru, confirm or correct... 'couse I was dreaming about distributing for free the same app here and sell it for the Iphones. and this shall not be. (right?)