Home > work > SWT / Qt?

SWT / Qt?

May 8th, 2008 Leave a comment Go to comments

I just noticed this post on the newsgroup. It seems EPL 1.0 is now included as an exception for Qt. IANAL, but does that mean it’s possible to do some SWT / Qt love without fearing the wrath of lawyers?

Categories: work Tags: , ,
  • Neil Bartlett

    I believe it does, yes. So we could build a version of Eclipse that runs on Qt.

    But, RCP developers would not be able to use SWT/Qt unless their apps were also released under EPL (or one of the other licenses listed on that page).

  • Neil Bartlett

    I believe it does, yes. So we could build a version of Eclipse that runs on Qt.But, RCP developers would not be able to use SWT/Qt unless their apps were also released under EPL (or one of the other licenses listed on that page).

  • Tom

    Cool I need to source for my sources (I once started writing an SWT port on top of QT-Jambi because I don’t know any C :-)

  • Tom

    Cool I need to source for my sources (I once started writing an SWT port on top of QT-Jambi because I don’t know any C :-)

  • Anonymous

    Hi,

    Thanks for keeping us informed, I can’t wait for the swt team to port it :) .

  • Anonymous

    Hi,Thanks for keeping us informed, I can’t wait for the swt team to port it :) .

  • Doug Schaefer

    IANAL either, but my interpretation is that you still can’t include commercial plug-ins in a Qt-ized Eclipse without paying Trolltech. That makes it less appealing for commercial contributors to SWT to do the port. Which I would think make it unlikely to happen.

  • Doug Schaefer

    IANAL either, but my interpretation is that you still can’t include commercial plug-ins in a Qt-ized Eclipse without paying Trolltech. That makes it less appealing for commercial contributors to SWT to do the port. Which I would think make it unlikely to happen.

  • Rafael Chaves

    If I develop a commercial multi-platform Eclipse-based product and I ship it as a set of features that you install (for instance, via Update Manager) on any Eclipse install, I (the product developer) wouldn’t be violating Qt’s license. I have no control where the users install the product. I don’t build for Qt, I build for Eclipse. Heck, I don’t even need to know what Qt is.

    Whether *users* can be in violation of Qt’s license, that is a different story. Any takers?

  • Rafael Chaves

    If I develop a commercial multi-platform Eclipse-based product and I ship it as a set of features that you install (for instance, via Update Manager) on any Eclipse install, I (the product developer) wouldn’t be violating Qt’s license. I have no control where the users install the product. I don’t build for Qt, I build for Eclipse. Heck, I don’t even need to know what Qt is.Whether *users* can be in violation of Qt’s license, that is a different story. Any takers?

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, I think Doug is a little off the mark here.

    I’m pretty sure this means a legit SWT/QT is now legally possible.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, I think Doug is a little off the mark here.I’m pretty sure this means a legit SWT/QT is now legally possible.

  • Anonymous

    I’m also not a lawyer, but I think, if you’re allowed to run commercial programs on KDE, why should it be illegal for an end-user to install commercial plugins in Eclipse?

  • Anonymous

    I’m also not a lawyer, but I think, if you’re allowed to run commercial programs on KDE, why should it be illegal for an end-user to install commercial plugins in Eclipse?

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes