[Interest] Digia to acquire Qt from Nokia

[Atlant Schmidt]

Sascha:

> You do know that FSF purists like Stallmann actually
> invented the LGPL as a means of making glibc more
> attractive to developers?

  It wasn't done for glibc; that's licensed under
  yet-another set of terms and conditions. But your
  main point is correct: The "Library" GPL (now
  "Lesser") GPL was developed to ease the onerous
  terms imposed by the GPL.


> >   Unfortunately, as has already been mentioned by several
> >   other folks, the fact that a given piece of software is
> >   licensed under the terms of the (L)GPL is a huge factor
> >   arguing against its use in several industries. The more-
> >   open licenses (BSD, MIT, etc.) are free from the large
> >   burdens that (L)GPL imposes for disclosure, upgrade-
> >   ability, extensive ongoing code analysis, and the like.
>
> Amusingly, you seem here to try to prove against your own initial statement:
> IF Nokia had relicensed Qt under a BSD, MIT, PD or any similar Do-What-The-
> Fuck-You-Want-To-License [1], THEN they would really have _destroyed_ the
> monetary value of Qt beyond repair.

  Please don't distort my argument. My argument, boiled down,
  is that switching to any open-source licensing approach
  destroys the owner's direct value in a software property.
  I don't argue whether that's GPL, LGPL, or the actually-
  free licenses.

  But if we're arguing for "secondary value", utility to an
  expanded market and user base, and the like, then the
  truly-free licenses are a far better choice than any
  of the (L)GPL or Mozilla licenses.

  (And it's pretty clear that, through a variety of means,
  Nokia *DID* destroy all of their invested value in Qt;
  there's no "would have" about it.)

                                   Atlant

-----Original Message-----
From: interest-bounces+aschmidt=dekaresearch.com at qt-project.org [mailto:interest-bounces+aschmidt=dekaresearch.com at qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Sascha Cunz
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 5:22 PM
To: interest at qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] Digia to acquire Qt from Nokia

On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 08:06:08 AM Atlant Schmidt wrote:
Atlant:
>   And the "indirect sales value" matters not a
>   whit to the owner of the software (or the
>   shareholders of the owner) unless the owner
>   is actively reaping a significant fraction
>   of that "indirect sales value" (which Nokia
>   wasn't).
>
>   I'm sorry; the FOSS folks have argued for years
>   that they have a workable financial model but
>   I see no evidence that this is true for anything
>   other than individuals and relatively small-scale
>   commercial operations.

You do know that FSF purists like Stallmann actually invented the LGPL as a
means of making glibc more attractive to developers? They almost at the same
time started to state that the LGPL is contradictory to their view of the
world and to doom it (the LGPL) as a "required evil".

But - as stated at several other places in this and similar threads - exactly
the same was the objective of Nokia issuing a LGPL relicense of Qt.

>   Unfortunately, as has already been mentioned by several
>   other folks, the fact that a given piece of software is
>   licensed under the terms of the (L)GPL is a huge factor
>   arguing against its use in several industries. The more-
>   open licenses (BSD, MIT, etc.) are free from the large
>   burdens that (L)GPL imposes for disclosure, upgrade-
>   ability, extensive ongoing code analysis, and the like.

Amusingly, you seem here to try to prove against your own initial statement:
IF Nokia had relicensed Qt under a BSD, MIT, PD or any similar Do-What-The-
Fuck-You-Want-To-License [1], THEN they would really have _destroyed_ the
monetary value of Qt beyond repair.

Sascha

[1] http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest at qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest


 Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/1qy6Ul9SOU7TndxI!oX7UskfEqpntbSQj8qd0gcu2T+E!1iYXWipCabil+dfIy8Gu2lcYzGWYGKBchKRB0KEKw==  to report this email as spam.

This e-mail and the information, including any attachments, it contains are intended to be a confidential communication only to the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original message.

Thank you.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.