On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Jo Dillon wrote:
> Well, this is true, but any commercial company can afford Qt's charges.
> I really don't think the Qt fees will deter companies from developing
> for Linux. I personally have always seen this side of things as a rather
> minor problem, and for that matter RMS said in discussions earlier
> that a GPL'd Harmony would be perfectly acceptable, even though that wouldn't
> allow commercial Harmony development at all.
But isn't is less an issue of money, versus the _idea_ that there is some
sort of central control of the software? Thinking about it, there is no
other circumstance like this in the Linux world. Qt is now open source,
but it certainly isn't open in the sense of the rest of the main libraries
that come with linux. If for instance the main X library had been under
this license, or even the C library, I'm not even sure Linux as we know it
would exist today.
Just something to think about. However much I wish it were so, I'm not
sure this whole deal is over yet. However, I do think that Harmony as an
independent project probably is.
---
Preston Brown
Red Hat Software, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
