Latest @
Forum Controls
Spotlight Features
The Rich Engineering Heritage Behind Dependency Injection
Andrew McVeigh takes us on a tour of the rich heritage behind dependency injection, what it represents, and tells us why its here to stay.
SWT for KDE / Qt?
At 7:34 AM on Apr 14, 2008, Jörg von Frantzius
wrote:
in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20486 it was stated that a Qt/KDE port of SWT cannot be released due to licensing issues with GPL. For some time now, Trolltech defines GPL exceptions ( http://trolltech.com/products/qt/gplexception ) which seem to allow such a thing, since the Eclipse Public License is explicitly listed there.
Could someone in the know clarify what the Eclipse Foundation's official stance is here?
Thanks for any comments,
Jörg
8 replies so far (
Post your own)
Re: SWT for KDE / Qt?
the license exception and it seems to at least be helpful. But the hard part in
doing these analyses is always figuring out the commercial distribution
case. Eclipse is specifically set up to not only allow but encourage
commercial adoption of technologies that are delivered by Eclipse projects. I am
not sure that their exception goes far enough to allow that. Doing such an
analysis would require a fairly significant investment in time and
money.
development team interested in working on this?
Re: SWT for KDE / Qt?
I'm asking just because I'd like to use it, as probably most KDE users will want to. So, no development team waiting to start work on it here, unfortunately, but not a rhetorical question either.
I'm pretty sure that the GPL exception does not extend to commercial products, as long as they aren't licensed under one of the mentioned OSS licenses themselves. The point is that this doesn't seem to preclude the Eclipse Foundation from releasing an SWT port for Qt, whoever could be creating it. It would then just exist for developer's pleasure, if you want. There were rumours floating around that there even already exists a Qt port, but that it simply couldn't be released due to legal issues, i.e. before the GPL exceptions were made by Trolltech. Steve Northover sounded a bit like the legal issues were the only problem with creating a Qt port.
Maybe it's just wishful thinking that Steve et al would do it, or even already had done it. But still I'd like to make sure that there simply is no legal issue standing in the way.
Regards,
Jörg
Mike Milinkovich schrieb:
Re: SWT for KDE / Qt?
If there is a question, then no corporate lawyer would allow such arelease. So, yes, even if a Qt port existed, I'm pretty sure none of the
SWT committers would be allowed by their employer to work on it because
of the legal implications.
This is something that has always bothered me about KDE and Qt. Yes, it
looks great and I understand that Trolltech needs revenue to pay for
it's development. But don't be fooled into thinking it's open source.
GPL is there to protect their investment, but it also prevents
widespread commercial adoption.
I keep hoping that Nokia, who recently bought Trolltech, will change
their business model. But that is just my hope. In the meantime, GTK
with it's more commercial friendly LGPL license slowly gets better.
Doug.
Jörg von Frantzius wrote:
> Hello Mike,
>
> I'm asking just because I'd like to use it, as probably most KDE users
> will want to. So, no development team waiting to start work on it here,
> unfortunately, but not a rhetorical question either.
>
> I'm pretty sure that the GPL exception does not extend to commercial
> products, as long as they aren't licensed under one of the mentioned OSS
> licenses themselves. The point is that this doesn't seem to preclude the
> Eclipse Foundation from releasing an SWT port for Qt, whoever could be
> creating it. It would then just exist for developer's pleasure, if you
> want. There were rumours floating around that there even already
> /exists/ a Qt port, but that it simply couldn't be released due to legal
> issues, i.e. before the GPL exceptions were made by Trolltech. Steve
> Northover sounded a bit like the legal issues were the only problem with
> creating a Qt port.
>
> Maybe it's just wishful thinking that Steve et al would do it, or even
> already had done it. But still I'd like to make sure that there simply
> is no legal issue standing in the way.
>
> Regards,
> Jörg
>
> Mike Milinkovich schrieb:
>> Jörg,
>>
>> The short answer is we don't know. I just looked at the license
>> exception and it seems to at least be helpful. But the hard part in
>> doing these analyses is always figuring out the commercial
>> distribution case. Eclipse is specifically set up to not only allow
>> but encourage commercial adoption of technologies that are delivered
>> by Eclipse projects. I am not sure that their exception goes far
>> enough to allow that. Doing such an analysis would require a fairly
>> significant investment in time and money.
>>
>> Is this a rhetorical question, or do you have a development team
>> interested in working on this?
>>
>> "Jörg von Frantzius" >> > wrote in message
>> news:ftvfga$dj$1 at build dot eclipse dot org...
>> Hi,
>>
>> in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20486 it was
>> stated that a Qt/KDE port of SWT cannot be released due to
>> licensing issues with GPL. For some time now, Trolltech defines
>> GPL exceptions (http://trolltech.com/products/qt/gplexception)
>> which seem to allow such a thing, since the Eclipse Public License
>> is explicitly listed there.
>>
>> Could someone in the know clarify what the Eclipse Foundation's
>> official stance is here?
>>
>> Thanks for any comments,
>> Jörg
>>
>
Re: SWT for KDE / Qt?
Doug Schaefer schrieb:> If there is a question, then no corporate lawyer would allow such a
> release. So, yes, even if a Qt port existed, I'm pretty sure none of
> the SWT committers would be allowed by their employer to work on it
> because of the legal implications.
I doubt there would be legal implications if the Qt port was released
under the EPL. There would be legal implications if anybody sold a
commercial product on top of it, without paying Trolltech.
My point really just is that for the Eclipse Foundation there would be
no trouble releasing it und the EPL. If any company, maybe the same
company that financed the port, would want to sell a build of their
product for the Qt platform, then they'd have to go and make a deal with
Trolltech themselves.
>
> This is something that has always bothered me about KDE and Qt. Yes,
> it looks great and I understand that Trolltech needs revenue to pay
> for it's development. But don't be fooled into thinking it's open
> source. GPL is there to protect their investment, but it also prevents
> widespread commercial adoption.
>
> I keep hoping that Nokia, who recently bought Trolltech, will change
> their business model. But that is just my hope. In the meantime, GTK
> with it's more commercial friendly LGPL license slowly gets better.
>
> Doug.
>
> Jörg von Frantzius wrote:
>> Hello Mike,
>>
>> I'm asking just because I'd like to use it, as probably most KDE
>> users will want to. So, no development team waiting to start work on
>> it here, unfortunately, but not a rhetorical question either.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that the GPL exception does not extend to commercial
>> products, as long as they aren't licensed under one of the mentioned
>> OSS licenses themselves. The point is that this doesn't seem to
>> preclude the Eclipse Foundation from releasing an SWT port for Qt,
>> whoever could be creating it. It would then just exist for
>> developer's pleasure, if you want. There were rumours floating around
>> that there even already /exists/ a Qt port, but that it simply
>> couldn't be released due to legal issues, i.e. before the GPL
>> exceptions were made by Trolltech. Steve Northover sounded a bit like
>> the legal issues were the only problem with creating a Qt port.
>>
>> Maybe it's just wishful thinking that Steve et al would do it, or
>> even already had done it. But still I'd like to make sure that there
>> simply is no legal issue standing in the way.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jörg
>>
>> Mike Milinkovich schrieb:
>>> Jörg,
>>>
>>> The short answer is we don't know. I just looked at the license
>>> exception and it seems to at least be helpful. But the hard part in
>>> doing these analyses is always figuring out the commercial
>>> distribution case. Eclipse is specifically set up to not only allow
>>> but encourage commercial adoption of technologies that are delivered
>>> by Eclipse projects. I am not sure that their exception goes far
>>> enough to allow that. Doing such an analysis would require a fairly
>>> significant investment in time and money.
>>>
>>> Is this a rhetorical question, or do you have a development team
>>> interested in working on this?
>>>
>>> "Jörg von Frantzius" >>> > wrote in message
>>> news:ftvfga$dj$1 at build dot eclipse dot org...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20486 it was
>>> stated that a Qt/KDE port of SWT cannot be released due to
>>> licensing issues with GPL. For some time now, Trolltech defines
>>> GPL exceptions (http://trolltech.com/products/qt/gplexception)
>>> which seem to allow such a thing, since the Eclipse Public License
>>> is explicitly listed there.
>>>
>>> Could someone in the know clarify what the Eclipse Foundation's
>>> official stance is here?
>>>
>>> Thanks for any comments,
>>> Jörg
>>>
>>
Re: SWT for KDE / Qt?
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:18:37 +0200, Jörg von Frantziuswrote:
>Doug Schaefer schrieb:
>> If there is a question, then no corporate lawyer would allow such a
>> release. So, yes, even if a Qt port existed, I'm pretty sure none of
>> the SWT committers would be allowed by their employer to work on it
>> because of the legal implications.
>I doubt there would be legal implications if the Qt port was released
>under the EPL. There would be legal implications if anybody sold a
>commercial product on top of it, without paying Trolltech.
>
The EPL allows everyone to sell a (even closed source) product based
on Eclipse technology. So every part used throughout Eclipse must be
licensed this way.
Achim
--
Achim Lörke
Eclipse-Stammtisch in the Braunschweig, Germany area:
http://www.bredex.de/de/career/eclipse.html
Re: SWT for KDE / Qt?
The Contributor could here e.g. be IBM, assuming they contribute a Qt port. To me this sounds like the Contributor himself must not be able to hinder anyone from selling the contribution in any form, i.e. the Recipients rights cannot be restricted by Contributor 's claims. It does not state that Recipient must not be bound to other restrictions set forth somewhere else for using the Contribution.
I'd still think that IBM could release a Qt port under EPL, with anybody wanting to sell it additionally being bound to Trolltech's terms:
Trolltech's terms would be binding only as soon as the Contribution leaves the OpenSource-space, so to say, with that space explicitly being extended from what GPL covers to what EPL covers. IBM would be kind of "passing through" those obligations for commercial use. In the commercial space, IBM would of course themselves be bound to Trolltech's terms as anybody else for their commercial offerings.
Re: SWT for KDE / Qt?
Comments below.
Jörg von Frantzius wrote: As far as I understand it, EPL must apply to all distributed content. So if it's distributed under EPL, no part of the distribution may have a license more restrictive than EPL itself. A contributor cannot wipe away restrictions by virtue of taking something from somewhere else and contributing it to Eclipse.
It's certainly more of a gray zone if only EPL content itself was distributed and the recipient themselves needed to fetch the GPL content and drop it in to make it work. As Mike says, these kinds of questions involve paying lawyers to make decisions about topics for which there is little in the way of legal precedents and hence in an area rife with risk. Lawyers really don't like risks...
So unless there is a group that wants to staff a Qt port and maintain it, the legal costs associated with answering the question doesn't seem like a cost effective way to spend the foundation's money...
Re: SWT for KDE / Qt?
Ed Merks wrote:> It's certainly more of a gray zone if only EPL content itself was
> distributed and the recipient themselves needed to fetch the GPL content
> and drop it in to make it work. As Mike says, these kinds of questions
> involve paying lawyers to make decisions about topics for which there is
> little in the way of legal precedents and hence in an area rife with
> risk. Lawyers really don't like risks...
An option might be to simply contact TrollTech to clarify these issues. They
are really nice and friendly guys and one might assume that they have an
opinion on this matter, since they were the ones adding the EPL-clause.
Cheers,
Carsten