On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <law...@au-kbc.org>wrote:
> > > http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license-gpl-exceptions.html > > and now I see why nokia is being mentioned ;-) > > So, as JTD has said - the whole thing is rubbish meant to deceive a > gullible > public by misusing the term GPL. Sorry, this is pure FUD! QT *OWNS* the code. *YOU* have the freedom to use it under GPL, as allowed by QT. *YOU* also have the freedom to NOT use it. Where's the misuse of GPL!? You wish to fork it, and call it "NotQT" - and release it again under GPL, please go ahead and do it. It won't make you a misuser! And what else - even if QT did not use GPL - for the simple fact that they give you the source code with every commercial license too, it's complying with the basic philosophy RMS expounds about freedom - the end user has the source and isn't left stranded with a welded bonnet! I'm sorry about having to stretch this thread so much - but misinformation is dangerous and hence this issue needs to be settled. -- jaju PS: *YOU* is not specifically _you_ but the user. -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
