Possible impending Qt fork and copperspice opportunity

Discuss anything related to product development
Post Reply
marlowa
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Oct 25 2015 10:52 am

Possible impending Qt fork and copperspice opportunity

Post by marlowa »

Hello Everyone,

I just read the article at https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=More-Interest-Possible-Qt-Fork which speculates on a fork of Qt due to Qt licensing becoming more restrictive in a way that might impede its use in open source projects. See also https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Qt-Might-Restrict-New-Releases.

This might be an opportunity for Copperspice, which already is a fork of Qt (albeit on version 4 rather than version 5). Instead of forking Qt from scratch again it might be worth people considering Copperspice and how it could be used to dodge these new restrictions. Of course, their is a lot of work to do before any fork would be in a position to be used instead of Qt in a large project such as KDE. Maybe it isn't even possible/feasible. But I just thought I'd mention it, FYI.

This issue has happened with Qt despite a strong history of open source development and using a well-established open source license. I think this shows the importance of open source projects being very up-front as to what license they have with corresponding implications for use or not in proprietary software and how the project is funded. It would be nice, IMO, for Copperspice to have a more prominent page from the home page that says what the license is and explains how the project is funded.

barbara
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Apr 04 2015 2:32 am

Re: Possible impending Qt fork and copperspice opportunity

Post by barbara »

Copperspice, which already is a fork of Qt (albeit on version 4 rather than version 5).
I would like to correct this information and set the record straight. The starting point of a software project has nothing to do with where development is today. CopperSpice was derived from Qt 4 and has moved forward and evolved considerably. Qt 5 was also derived from Qt 4 and it too has moved forward.

Our project was started before Qt 5 was released and there was no need to start over and repeat completed work.

Barbara

barbara
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Apr 04 2015 2:32 am

Re: Possible impending Qt fork and copperspice opportunity

Post by barbara »

We received an email asking about the license for CopperSpice and we would like clear up a few possible misconceptions.

Qt 4 was both GPL 3 and LGPL 2.1 and the CopperSpice team selected LPGL 2.1 for our derivative work. The license for Qt changed starting with the release of Qt 5.7, when they switched to GPL 3 and LGPL 3.

A few people have stated they dislike LGPL 2.1 since it is requires open sourcing any changes to CopperSpice. However, what is often misunderstood is that an application developed using CopperSpice does not need to be released as open source. As someone using the CopperSpice libraries, you are allowed to release your application with almost any license, including LGPL 3 or even proprietary.

By CopperSpice remaining as LGPL 2.1 we offer the most flexibility possible. As developers you are not restricted and can freely adjust the license for your applications. In fact, our own applications DoxyPress and Diamond are both released as GPL 2 however we could have used LGPL 3 for Diamond.

Barbara

Post Reply