-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks,
AR> Wasn't the point of the GNU suggested wording to be a model of how to AR> allow linking to Qt2 on Windows? On Unix there is no problem with AR> either GPL or QPL as I understand it. So we would still need to AR> mention Qt2. What happens to a port to MFC? Aqua? or some other AR> toolkit which is proprietory and closed source? We need to keep AR> revising our license clarification. Why not just stick with a general AR> statement that says we can link to whatever closed system libraries we AR> need to -- native Windows port will need native graphics and IO and AR> whatever else libs after all. I'm not trying to start a GPL-vs-BSD flamewar here, but why not release it under the modified BSD license? Then the linking problem would be out of the world once and for all, and its pretty much in line with most of the rest of TeX. Philipp mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________ Nuke the gay, unborn, baby whales for Jesus. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (MingW32) Comment: Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one. iD8DBQE74APu3PGzpSk43FoRApvvAJ9Y0KYs30k01+EriEgvvCwSjc8ukgCgrzMi RWAdyvMAimthOfteLkCm2JY= =Yy8z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
