--- Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Ok, I was mistaken, it turns out they released the GNU version back in April [non-AFPL]. They usually lag behind about 6-8 months with the GNU version, so I was thinking that he used the APFL version. Anyhow, just a false alarm. > >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? Check out the suggestion in my reply to your last post. You may or may not like it, but I think it would provide the definitive, independant counsel you need in this matter. Otherwise, I guess I will have to give up, since it is you, not I, who runs this project. Cheers, Nicholas __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
