4 ms·
For open source projects, it is available under LGLP, which is less restrictive than PyQt's GPL. It's also available under the commerical license, too, so cust
by Longhanks 8y ago
For open source projects, it is available under LGLP, which is less restrictive than PyQt's GPL.
It's also available under the commerical license, too, so customers don't have to purchase from the Qt Company AND PyQt.
- montalbano 8y agoI was just trying to figure out why Qt might have chosen to actively support PySide rather than PyQt, I guess that licensing might be the answer. I wonder what implications this might have for PyQt?
- seba_dos1 8y agoPyQt refusing to license under LGPL is basically the reason for PySide to exist.
- cup-of-tea 8y ago> For open source projects, it is available under LGLP And how does this make the slightest difference for open source projects?
- jhasse 8y agoThey can chose any open-source license. With PyQT being under GPL you're force to use the GPL, too (you can always dual-license though).
- cup-of-tea 8y ago> you can always dual-license though Exactly. So no practical difference. Just a religious one.
- jhasse 8y agoWell, the second license isn't that useful, as no one could distribute the code under it, as long as it's still using PyQt (and he doesn't buy a license). Also you can't include non-GPL compatible code (Apache is incompatible with GPLv2 for example).
- cup-of-tea 8y agoWhy would you want them to distribute it? Distribute under GPL, offer a proprietary licence and they'd have to buy the proprietary licence to Qt too.
- jhasse 8y agoWhich is a practical difference.
- cup-of-tea 8y agoOnly for those who don't want to contribute to open source. If we're just talking about open source it doesn't matter.
- jhasse 8y agoopen-source != GPL-licensed
- meeeh 8y agoYou can use it in BSD/MIT/MPL/Apache/whatever licensed projects. A library licensed under GPL can only be used in GPL licensed projects.
- cup-of-tea 8y agoIt's unlikely that Qt will be added to an existing project, so just license the new project under GPL. What's the problem?
- petee 8y agoWell, the GPL itself, for starters! GPL isn't acceptable for many people, for a variety of reasons. Personally, i'd rather my open source to be actually open source, and free to use, not "kinda" free
- cup-of-tea 8y agoWhere do these beliefs come from? The GPL is the most free licence there is specifically because it prohibits future users from using copyright to restrict other users. It's a globally optimal solution rather than a locally optimal one.
- petee 8y agoThat's not free. That's a restriction. Free is letting your users choose what to do, and just making sure you get credit for your work. You can't take ownership of code that's been permissivly licensed, you just don't have to share your contributions. Nobody could just copyright OpenBSDs code and then sue them
- cup-of-tea 8y agoShould you be free to take the freedoms of others? Are you free to move into your neighbour's back garden? Freedom extends to the point where it becomes taking the freedom from others.
- geofft 8y agoYou can't incorporate code from / link with other GPLv3-incompatible open source projects, such as GPLv2 projects.
- cup-of-tea 8y agoNot really a problem with Python. There's no linking.
- jhasse 8y ago"import" or rather combine then.
- viraptor 8y agoGPL is pretty clear on this one: importing modules counts as linking. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL > A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java classes in your program, you must release the program in a GPL-compatible way,
- cpburns2009 8y agoExcluding C extensions, isn't Python linking (via import) dynamic only?
- appleflaxen 8y agoIt's sad to see programming effort going into a redundant library that differs only by a license, when it could be used to implement something new.
- petee 8y agoI agree. Arguably, the GPL has probably done more harm than good to open source in the long run, and will continue to be a dividing issue for a long time, sadly
- lookACamel 8y agoThat's because "open source" came after the GPL ("free software") and was positioned as something decidedly different.