tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285677929777490656.post5548944041641545602..comments2023-10-31T13:16:01.375+03:00Comments on Open CASCADE notes: The King is dead. Long live the King !Roman Lyginhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18338419158437898791noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285677929777490656.post-36874243448022151932009-01-19T20:41:00.000+03:002009-01-19T20:41:00.000+03:00Mark, thanks for this perspective. Interesting.Tho...Mark, thanks for this perspective. Interesting.<BR/>Though I don't think this was connected with charity (we both likely mean towards open source community, not to Eirik and Haavard, Trolltech co-founders, right ?;-))<BR/>On positioning against Microsoft. Well, there can be some truth in it (but I think not because "Nokia is not fond of M$" - at this level many companies are both partners and competitors). My guess is more towards mobile market (where Nokia is a strong player). Since I don't know that segment well, this is more a speculation. Perhaps by controlling Qtopia (now named Qt Extended) they want to better compete with other offerings, such as Google Androids or iPhones, and maybe Windows Mobile ?Roman Lyginhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18338419158437898791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285677929777490656.post-54244531678236764292009-01-19T20:27:00.000+03:002009-01-19T20:27:00.000+03:002 Pawel.The most important thing is that Qt Softwa...2 Pawel.<BR/>The most important thing is that Qt Software (=Trolltech) emphasizes the spirit of their move - yes, they permit use LGPL'ed Qt in closed source apps.<BR/>Regarding reverse engineering/stripping, I think this only relates to binaries of the LGPL'ed library itself, not to your own code. At least this is how I interpret it. And this sounds logical - as long as you provide dynamically linked library (Qt) and its sources (or refer where to download them), the users should be able to compile on their own and debug your version of the library to make sure there are no modifications that you could make and do not wish to disclose (what would be LGPL violation). Maybe my initial wording sounded as if you shouldn't prevent your *own* code reverse engineering. Meanwhile I consulted our training classes materials but they were not verbose on that matter. If there's a chance I'll talk to our legal.Roman Lyginhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18338419158437898791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285677929777490656.post-51447895747265652322009-01-17T22:56:00.000+03:002009-01-17T22:56:00.000+03:00You ask why Nokia would make this change. Why do ...You ask why Nokia would make this change. Why do large companies give money to charity?<BR/><BR/>I think Nokia might see this as doing something good, building goodwill maybe. Also, if it attracts developers and/or improvements, it makes it easier to write cross-platform apps. That might hurt Microsoft, and I doubt Nokia is fond of M$.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00682485811420861005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285677929777490656.post-87498429031553020162009-01-16T15:05:00.000+03:002009-01-16T15:05:00.000+03:00I think we're again at a place where a lawyer's op...I think we're again at a place where a lawyer's opinion would be appreciated... but anyway, here is mine.<BR/><BR/>I guess the situation with LGPL'd libraries is pretty similar to the one with LGPL'd icons. If you include those in your application you have to give the user the possibility to change/replace them. This is at least how I interpret the LGPL terms based on a number of web articles. The same condition has to be fulfilled if you ship LGPL'd dlls. You have to include the code of those and let the user modify them or use his own version of the libraries with your application. You don't have to provide the source of your app (this actually prevents debugging/reverse engineering too, right?) if I get the LGPL license right. Why would you have to provide the debug symbols? You just have to allow the debugging to the end user (learning the assembly language is up to him).Pawelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08979312019226548943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285677929777490656.post-78688492204350282462009-01-15T22:32:00.000+03:002009-01-15T22:32:00.000+03:002 Ceniza:Yes, this is correct understanding. You m...2 Ceniza:<BR/>Yes, this is correct understanding. You may <B>dynamically</B> link your own created software to LGPL'ed library and license your software under a license of your choice. Thus, you have full rights not to disclose the source code and charge a fee. There is an interesting roadblock with LGPL 2.1 regarding C++ templates and inlines which contaminates user's code thus making it subject to LGPL. Trolls acknowledged this issue and stated they would provide an explicit exception clause fully permitting commercial code to use LGPL'ed Qt.<BR/><BR/>2 Ceniza and Stefan:<BR/>LGPL implies certain requirements including one to not prevent reverse engineering. Stripping binaries prevent it and thus is forbidden (but I did not see practical use of stripping binaries in a broad use). See <A HREF="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html" REL="nofollow">section 6 of LGPL 2.1</A>: <I>...you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms <B>permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications</B>.</I>Roman Lyginhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18338419158437898791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285677929777490656.post-40879340450184527752009-01-15T19:39:00.000+03:002009-01-15T19:39:00.000+03:00Can you explain stripping binary and not-preventin...Can you explain stripping binary and not-preventing reverse-engineering?stefkeBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11101340033056377955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285677929777490656.post-46643225118293213622009-01-15T09:56:00.000+03:002009-01-15T09:56:00.000+03:00I found about this news last night when checking w...I found about this news last night when checking www.kde.org. However, I'm not really aware of the implications of LGPL to full extent. As far as I know, it allows you to create executable code, which is closed source, as long as you link against the LGPL library dynamically. It would also mean that you can charge for your software without having to pay anything to Nokia (in the case of Qt). You say that for the binary you release it must be possible to do reverse-engineering. What's the purpose? Having a way to check you are not including code that you shouldn't into it?<BR/><BR/>Do you know of any other implications of using LGPL'd libraries?Cenizahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13711461089780429660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3285677929777490656.post-4435018766234921152009-01-15T01:23:00.000+03:002009-01-15T01:23:00.000+03:00Interesting post Roman!I'm very curious about QOLi...Interesting post Roman!<BR/>I'm very curious about QOLib...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com