From: "richard.j.dale@..." Date: 2008-03-04T01:10:00+09:00 Subject: Re: qtruby4 license On Mar 3, 3:10 pm, Gregory Seidman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 10:59:54PM +0900, richard.j.d...@gmail.com wrote: > > [...] > > > The QtRuby code is copyrighted by a small number of people, and it > > would certainly be possible to add another license type, such as > > commercial, bsd or mit. If you really do think you need a commercial > > license please email me to discuss. Note that it wouldn't be possible > > to release QtRuby under an LGPL license though. > > It seems like LGPL would be ideal in this instance. I believe that's what > KDE uses, for exactly the same reasons. Why wouldn't it be possible for > QtRuby? Because I would need permission from Trolltech and my understanding is that they don't like an LGPL license used with language bindings, although they are happy that the KDE libs are LGPL'd. A few years ago, when I asked them about changing the QtJava license from GPL to LGPL, they were very much against the idea. They were much happier with a QtJava dual license GPL/commercial to match the licensing scheme of Qt itself. The QtJava bindings were never as successful as the QtRuby ones have been, and I really don't think there would have been much demand for a commercial version from a one man company such as mine. The QtJambi Java bindings are more successful some years later, perhaps because they have Trolltech's marketing expertise and development funding right behind them. QtJambi is dual licensed of course. Their view may have changed now, and I haven't discussed it with anyone from Trolltech for a while. Now that Qt is getting better and better, and Ruby is beginning to really get some great runtimes, I think it makes sense to start thinking of some sort of commercial QtRuby version. -- Richard