[Mono-dev] C bindings VS C++ bindings (Gtk# vs. Kimono?)

James Mansion james at mansionfamily.plus.com
Mon Oct 15 14:42:15 EDT 2007

Jonathan Pryor wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 20:37 +0100, James Mansion wrote:
>> The use of GPL is very unfortunate - Qt does at least allow for MPL and 
>> an extending range of other
>> open source licences.  
> Uh, Qt is NOT compatible with MPL and an extended range of other open
> source licenses.  From [0], you have an effective choice between a
> commercial license (which would permit any license for your code that
> you care for, permitted you pay for a Qt license *before* you begin
> development) and the open source licensing [1] which requires you to use
> GPL.
> 0] http://trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing
> [1] http://trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/opensource
> [2] http://cougarpc.net/qyoto/
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-devel-list mailing list
> Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
I disagree.

See http://trolltech.com/products/qt/gplexception and 

Note that there has been some sort of exception for a long time - hence 
the PC-BSD team was
able to build its UI tools.

The mono runtimes are carefully made very free and could be used in 
PC-BSD for example: as I said, its
a great shame that these C# bindings are under a more restrictive license.

Mind you I'm also unsure quite what Trolltech intend to achieve with 
their restrictions about 'going commercial'.

I can use the open source version and write code under GPL.  But there's 
nothing in GPL that requires
that I do actually distribute.  And if I then decide to relicense (which 
I can, since I'm the copyright holder),
will Trolltech *really* turn their noses up at the license fees?  I 
rather doubt it.  A risk, definitely, that they
could hold me to ransom - but only over the prototype implementation 
code itself.  Which they won't have.
I don't begrudge them their money, but it seems overly complicated - and 
it doesn't force a large
user community who could pay to actually do so.  But that's true of 
other dual license schemes too
I guess.


More information about the Mono-devel-list mailing list