Re: [TCLUG:2858] Qt license debate: OVER

["Shawn T . Amundson" <amundson@gimp.org>]

The license still sucked the last I read it.  I, for example, could
not take Qt and create a branch for others to work on because the
'patch' clause makes it impractical.  I personally don't consider 
that acceptable.  It is better than it was, but it isn't LGPL. 

Qt is also restricted based on usage.

-Shawn

On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 04:08:56AM -0600, Neal Tovsen wrote:
> 
> I seem to remember that there was some debate about Troll Tech's licensing
> schema for the Qt libraries (used in KDE, and other stuff). Some people
> didn't like the fact that though KDE was OpenSource, Qt wasn't. I seem to
> remember that some said they were going Gnome primarily for this reason.
> 
> It appears that a number of people have had this complaint, because Qt
> will be going OpenSource as of version 2.0. Check it out:
> 
> http://www.troll.no/announce/qpl.html
> 
> If y'all already knew this, feel free to tell me to get out of my box more
> often!
> 
> 			Neal Tovsen
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tclug-list-unsubscribe@listserv.real-time.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: tclug-list-help@listserv.real-time.com
> Try our website: http://tclug.real-time.com
> 
--
Shawn T. Amundson               
amundson@gimp.org               http://www.gimp.org/~amundson

"The assumption that the universe looks the same in every
 direction is clearly not true in reality." - Stephen Hawking