lars lamented,
> I'd say: Work with the FSF to make the GPL really say what it tries to
> say. I don't think Lyx should have its own GPL derived "corrected"
> lisence.
That doesn't solve our problem, though. As I'm reading it, lyx is ok
with what it says, but not with what it's accepted to say.
If the GPL says any of what its proponents say it does about linked
libraries, we're plain and simply not GPL; we're already a GPL derived
license. The question is what we do about it to avoid a debian/kde
type situation. Come to think of it, i'm not aware of *any*
differences between the lyx/xforms and KDE/qt relationships, other than
that we're not connected to any holy wars. (However, if KDE is
actually a descendant of gpl software that used something gpl rather
than qt, the distinction could be made).
rick
--
