[Kde-bindings] license question

[Marcus]

On Tuesday 20 December 2005 4:36 am, Richard Dale wrote:

> So if QtRuby and Qyoto were derived from PerlQt, would it be possible to
> have a dual licensed GPL/Commercial version? The commercial part wouldn't
> include kalyptus as that is GPL, and it is only needed to generate the
> Smoke library, of which the runtime part is MIT licensed isn't it? I ask
> because I get the feeling that the Qt4 version of QtRuby might be very
> popular and there might be sufficient demand for a commercial version (and
> maybe PerlQt too for that matter).

All of this is kind of theoretical until someone actually legal action occurs.

Tolltech interprets the GPL in strange ways. For example, from what I have 
read about GPL, it only concerns distribution. If you never distribute your 
work, the provisions about distributing source code are not an issue. 
Trolltech is taking the position that even if you develop and use an 
application inside a company, you must use the commercial Qt license.

Are there examples of companies that write closed-source applications using 
kdelibs?