From: "richard.j.dale@..." <richard.j.dale@...>
Date: 2006-10-25T17:25:06+09:00
Subject: Re: Freeride, FXRuby, FXScintilla, etc. (Includes [Fwd: [fxscintilla-users] ANNOUNCE: FXScintilla 1.71 and stopping])

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> David Vallner wrote:
> >> 3. Qt is beautiful but has a weird license
> >
> > I thought you could happily drop into GPL for Qt4? It's not quite ideal
> > for commercial use, but fine enough for hackery. And Qt looks mildly
> > interesting as a sanity layer over C++.
>
> From the horse's web site:
>
> http://www.trolltech.com/company/about/businessmodel

Each to his own, but I can't personally see anything 'weird' there.
I've only ever had one or two enquiries about a commericial version of
QtRuby, but I think it could be dual licensed if there was sufficient
interest. Maybe commercial Ruby software will be possible when there
are JRuby, YARV or CLR Ruby apps. At the moment as you have to release
the source I can't see much point in it. If you do internal development
with QtRuby and don't release it, the GPL doesn't prevent you from
doing that.

I think other licenses are better for 'imaginary' freeware/shareware
apps, that only appear in these endless LGPL vs GPL vs other license
discussions. If you want to write one of those I agree wxruby, fxruby,
gtk or whatever are better choices.