Alan Cox writes... > KDE standardising needs to follow Qt getting a stable API (maybe Qt3 does > this). What do Troll tech think
Well we had hoped to talk to them about it before going any further. We know they are pretty sick of dealing with license issues (as is everyone I'm sure). In the minutes from the last lsb-futures confcall, http://freestandards.org/pipermail/lsb-futures/2002-April/000429.html I got assigned writing up the situation which I haven't gotten to yet :( We are still in the process of deciding/discovering/documenting what the LSB's license criteria are. So far the LSB has not included any libraries that require anything of developers using them. Matt Wilson recently phrased this as "a no-strings-attached development environment". For example there are no GPL'd libraries in the the LSB. With the GPL its clear because developers who use a GPL'd library have to use the GPL. The QPL is less clear because it depends on the case. My understanding is that if you use QPL'd software to develop - an open source product: then you must permit (section 6) - use without charge - re-distribution of original and modified versions - upon request, a copy of non-public software to the original author - a propriatary product that uses libqt: then you need to pay developer license fees. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So does this violate the "no-strings-attached" rule? Unlike the GPL it _is_ possible to create propriatary versions but at a cost. Where do we draw the line? As others have pointed out, nothing prevents developers from using things not in the lsb, they just have to link statically or deliver the DSO themselves. So the question is what criteria does a candiate need to meet for us to standardize and promote it? -- Matt Taggart Linux Development Lab [EMAIL PROTECTED] HP Linux Systems Operation -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
