FC4 or FC5

[jdow]

From: "Craig White" <craigwhite at azapple.com>

> On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 12:04 -0700, jdow wrote:
>> From: "Peter Gordon" <peter at thecodergeek.com>
>> > jdow wrote:
>> 
>> >> By the way, has anybody noticed how much a license for Qt costs if
>> >> you want to get PAID for software you right? I might as well simply
>> >> get an MSDN license and develop for XP. Ditto with respect to the
>> >> RHEL costs. They cost MORE than XP in the long run.
>> > Qt and RHEL are both Free/Open-source. You do not necessarily need to
>> > pay any licensing fees to make money on either of them. (Though, for
>> > RHEL, you do have to remove the trademarked artwork and stuff before
>> > you can redistribute it, with or without charging a fee for that
>> > copying.)
>> 
>> Reread the Qt license, Peter. If you have developed any software that
Sorry - I left out the word "non-GPL" here ---------------^

>> uses Qt in any way (ie. for KDE) you MUST purchase a commercial license
>> from TrollTech. And it is NOT cheap if you are a small developer.
> ----
> I note that you didn't provide a specific reference.
> 
> This reference would have me feeling that your commentary is wrong...
> 
> http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/opensource
> ----

"If you wish to use the Qt Open Source Edition, you must contribute all
your source code to the open source community in accordance with the
GPL when your application is distributed."

I can develop. I just cannot place food on my table via that effort.
I an savagely addicted to nutrients such as protein. If you have a
way to do without these please let me know.

>> (And with the current GPL nonsense I am STRONGLY disinclined to
>> perform any serious development that surrounds me with its level of
>> uncertainty over my legal liabilities for wanting to have bread on
>> my table. So I grit my teeth and develop for Windows.)
> ----
> GPL isn't nonsense...it's a license. As a software developer, you can
> choose the license that you want for the software you write. Of course,
> you may not borrow other GPL code into the software you write unless you
> release the software as GPL too. Of course, if you choose not to use GPL
> or other 'free' license, you must pay for qt if you use qt to write the
> code. Those are choices that you make.

It is nonsense to me. If I work I expect recompense. Therefore I cannot
develop for GPL. I am perfectly content to sponge off them and use their
work. The other folks seem quite happy to work for ego alone it seems.
Or they are happy to work for large companies like RedHat. I've had my
fill of large companies or even small to medium size companies.

> The notion that you 'grit your teeth and develop for Windows' suggests
> that all is not perfect in that environment either.

I'm not saying it is. I am saying I can charge money for the work I
do without having to give it all away to any who ask. I note that some
of my work is "Here's the work product. Here's the source code. Do with
it what you want. You hired me to deliver what I have delivered and you
paid me." Some is product sold one piece at a time in a market small
enough I have to charge more than I'd like for it. Under GPL once I
sold ONE copy I'd never sell another. So I'd have to sell that copy for
a price so high nobody would buy it.

If you want to put money on your table through honest work GPL sucks
dead bunnies through garden hoses.

{^_^}