On Jul 16, 2005, at 1:39 AM, Sven de Marothy wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 00:13 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
[snip:Blahblahblah, qt licensing]
That's no fun. Remember, we're happy w/ people innovating and doing
closed source impls of their work if they choose.
Well, you can't do a closed source impl of GTK (LGPL) either. And Open
Motif is the same. SWT is copyleft and out of the question
entirely. So
where do you want to draw the proverbial line anyway? Write your own
ASL-licensed widget toolkit? Reimplement the whole operating system?
It doesn't stop people from doing closed source impls either. Although
it requires a license. OTOH, the LGPL does add certain requirements to
the code that links to it as well.
Anyway, I frankly don't care. If Harmony doesn't want to use them,
then
don't. I'm more concerned with what I want, and what the people
actually
using Classpath want, not what this mailing list wants.
Right!
Just to put things into perspective: You can also make the argument
that
a set of Windows or OS X peers wouldn't be distributable by
Classpath or
Harmony either, since they need a set of commercial libraries that
require you to purchase Windows or OS X.
Why?
This was in response to Rodrigo saying "Harmony can't use Qt". Let's
forget for a second that Qt is available in FOSS versions, and just
consider it as a proprietary library:
Where's the fundamental difference between building peers on one
proprietary library (Qt) and the proprietary libraries which happen to
be distributed with proprietary OSes? I don't see any.
In terms of "proprietaryness", no - there is no difference. But I
read it as we'd force people to go get Windows or OS X (I'd vote for
OS X...) in order to use Harmony, where we'd be counting on the
required software being there for those that use Windows or OS X
because it ships with the os...
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
