'Tom Julien wrote:' > >IMHO, a license like Qt's is long overdue. It makes a fine >commercial product available to both X11 and Win32, yet it >provides a great mechanism to promote freeware/open standards >like Unix/X11 *over* propriety ones. Troll's reasoning for >not allowing modified versions may not include this rationale, >but I am certainly tickled pink to see it for this very reason.
Have you looked at the Aladdin Ghostscript Free Public License? Peter Deutsch has thought a lot about these issues. Why did the Qt people not use his approach? [Removed debian-devel from the Cc: list as this is beyond Debian policy.] -- Christopher J. Fearnley | Linux/Internet Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society) ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf | Design Science Revolutionary "Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller | Explorer in Universe -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
