On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:51:08AM -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote: > >--- Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:14:50AM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote: >> >Any comments ? >> >> Are there any licensing issues with qt? Is the open source license >> compliant >> with cygwin's? >> >> http://cygwin.com/licensing.html >> > >Ghostscript's license [The aladdin license (APFL?)] is much more >restrictive than the QPL.
If we are not in compliance with Ghostscript then that is a problem. It is entirely separate from whether qt is compatible with the GPL + Cygwin. If you were aware of issues with ghostcript you should have raised them. >Besides when you compile QT, you'll get a screen which shows how the >QPL is mutually inclusive of the GPL. So, if I show you a screen which says it's exclusive of the GPL, you'll just give up? Since I don't accept the word of every person with a web site out there who thinks they are compliant with the GPL, I don't see why I should accept the words of a screen. Is there an independent corroboration of this anywhere? cgf
