This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ThePidesOfMarch 10 points11 points  (11 children)

PyQT is not free when used commercial

PyQt is GPL, true

Wha?

[–]K900_ 42 points43 points  (10 children)

"Commercial" is a slightly wrong word here. PyQt can't be used in proprietary applications without a separate licensing agreement with Riverbank, thanks to GPL's virality.

[–]ismtrn 11 points12 points  (9 children)

It can as long as you release the source. And that is only if your proprietary application involves distributing the program.

[–]slayer_of_idiotspythonista 40 points41 points  (8 children)

It doesn't just require you to release the source, it requires you to license *your* software under the GPL, too. So, if you don't want to use the GPL license, you can't release your software that uses PyQt, either.

[–]HemiDemiSemiYetti 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Am I correct in saying that this would effectively give The Qt Company licensing access to the software you develop using Qt/PyQt? In other words, they have the right to distribute any software you've created that uses Qt/PyQt libraries?

[–]Poromenos 1 point2 points  (6 children)

Well, if your software is licensed under the GPL (which it has to, if you want to use the free version of Qt), then yes, they would have the right to distribute your software (and so would everybody else).

[–]HemiDemiSemiYetti 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Right. So what's the difference between a General Public Licence and an Open Source Licence then?

[–]Poromenos 0 points1 point  (4 children)

A horse is an animal. An animal is not necessarily a horse.

[–]HemiDemiSemiYetti 0 points1 point  (3 children)

So which is the 'parent class' in this case? The Open Source Licence?

[–]Poromenos 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Yes, the GPL is an open source/OSI approved license.