I'm doing a project that I might want to try to sell or do something with later on. For the prototype, (will probably port to something more web friendly) i'm using Java with QT designer for the UI. Now my question is, if I use the open source license for QT, what kind of copyright issues will it cause? Will I only have to share the UI as open source or the whole system? Can potential competitors use my UI to provide the same product with their own system behind it? Any recommendations/java sucks comments?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-12 2:00
java sucks
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-12 2:08
I recommend you to read the license text.
Also, java sucks.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-12 2:53
I don't really have anything to add to this thread, although let it be stated for the record that quote ``java sucks'' end quote.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-12 2:57
If it forms a derivative of QT open source, then the derivative must also be licensed under a GPL compatible license.
Now that I think about it, I get that QT is released under GPL and if you want to change QT you have to keep it as GPL, but how the hell are they supposed to limit the applications made with QT? QT is a tool that creates java files from a visual design, just like gcc creates executables from code.
>>8
Actually the QT designer automatically inserts the GPL virus in your software. The virus is impossible to remove and it's better to destroy the whole codebase if you ever wish to make profit by programming.
Name:
Amerifags2007-11-12 9:33
According to the Wall Street Journal, it'd be very dangerous to use GPL; if you were a sysadmin you'd be scared to hell, beacuse if QT is free software, users of >>1's software will get viruses created by others installed in their enterprise's internet, and since the internet is a series of tubes, it means everyone will get infected, so buy Windows Vista now.
>>14
European socialism allows terrorists to blow shit up. Don't support it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-12 15:33
>>18
American capitalism allows terrorists to blow shit up. Don't support it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-12 18:25
>>19
Niggers allow niggers to breed. Don't support them.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-12 18:47
>>1
ignore the trolls here. they couldn't program a loop using goto if their life depended on it.
The GPL kicks in when you distribute someone else's GPL code. If your program forms a derivate of the GPL code, then the derivative must also be licensed under the GPL if you choose to distribute the derivative. The GPL does not kick in when the GPL program happens to interact with other programs.
If you use QT open source and make a derivative binary by linking to it, your derivative must also be open source.
>>9
So what is IBM and Red Hat profiting from? Last I heard, they were getting millions in revenue from free software.
>>25
Wow how did know it was me? You must be an intelligent and insightful EXPERT PROGRAMMER, . I think everyone ought to look at things the way you do. Anyone who disagrees is an idiot, and it's not even worth the time to expose yourself to anything they say.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-13 7:06
Actually, there's nothing wrong with GPLv3, it's actually better than GPLv2 in that it ensures fuckers won't spike their GPLed products with AIDS you can't remove, such as DRM. It's the same as GPLv2 for the most part.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-13 7:21
Actually, there's nothing wrong with GPLv3 It's the same as GPLv2 for the most part.
>>29
No. GPL2 and GPL3 are the same in spirit. Many of the concepts that were implied in GPL2 became explicit in GPL3. Also, the language was improved to make it easier to enforce in non-US courts.