I am glad atleast you read it.
GPL is a very commercial license ( I am sorry for that)
But GPL more importantly protects the rights of the comsumer and the
programmer.
Do you know MS spends more money on advertising than programming and
this takes toll in form of bad software
If same trend comes into play in Linux ( which is till now known for
quality software with low learning bend compared to other unices) the
only loser would be linux cause MS would get away by saying linux
is'nt stable enough
If you read QPL in detail it has some flaws like if you want to produce
QT based commercial software you need to pay some money
GNU has made sure this does'nt happen, like on case was of bison
bison is a yacc (its a parser). bison genrated code contained 80%
bison itself. GNU changed BISON license so that people could ship
commercial software with open code. This license is called LGPL.
But TechTroll people are themself not sure what to do. After one year of
discussion and nothing has happened
so QT is not Free software per se.
It may be considered open source though ( But term open source
is a very lose term)
On 18 Jun, Neil wrote:
> 2) Open source licsense like QPL and netscape license are very
> commercial in nature. One should atleast read it once before
> using
> u live acording 2 the constitution... thats a kinda liscence 2... hav u read it??
>
> also... who said gpl isnot commercial in nature!!! please get 1 that strait!!!
> and what do u hav against the qpl??? i hav read it... it seems pretty reasonable 2
>me!!!
--
ScreenSaver? cat /dev/mem
IDE? cat >foo
Sound Player? cat foo.wav >/dev/audio
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
The mailing list archives are available at
http://lists.linux-india.org/cgi-bin/wilma/linux-delhi/
