[Mono-dev] C bindings VS C++ bindings (Gtk# vs. Kimono?)
james at mansionfamily.plus.com
Mon Oct 15 14:42:15 EDT 2007
Jonathan Pryor wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 20:37 +0100, James Mansion wrote:
>> The use of GPL is very unfortunate - Qt does at least allow for MPL and
>> an extending range of other
>> open source licences.
> Uh, Qt is NOT compatible with MPL and an extended range of other open
> source licenses. From , you have an effective choice between a
> commercial license (which would permit any license for your code that
> you care for, permitted you pay for a Qt license *before* you begin
> development) and the open source licensing  which requires you to use
> 0] http://trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing
>  http://trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/opensource
>  http://cougarpc.net/qyoto/
> Mono-devel-list mailing list
> Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
See http://trolltech.com/products/qt/gplexception and
Note that there has been some sort of exception for a long time - hence
the PC-BSD team was
able to build its UI tools.
The mono runtimes are carefully made very free and could be used in
PC-BSD for example: as I said, its
a great shame that these C# bindings are under a more restrictive license.
Mind you I'm also unsure quite what Trolltech intend to achieve with
their restrictions about 'going commercial'.
I can use the open source version and write code under GPL. But there's
nothing in GPL that requires
that I do actually distribute. And if I then decide to relicense (which
I can, since I'm the copyright holder),
will Trolltech *really* turn their noses up at the license fees? I
rather doubt it. A risk, definitely, that they
could hold me to ransom - but only over the prototype implementation
code itself. Which they won't have.
I don't begrudge them their money, but it seems overly complicated - and
it doesn't force a large
user community who could pay to actually do so. But that's true of
other dual license schemes too
More information about the Mono-devel-list