Re: QT2 ready for ITP?
Corinna schrieb: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:57:36AM -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote: --- Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, AFAIK, YANAL and IANAL, so I don't know how you can make Can we please cut out the acronyms? We should be respectful of Ralf and others for whom English is a second[or third, etc.] language. Why? I'm non-native, too, but actually I'm using acronyms as well. *And* I have this one: http://www.acronymfinder.com/ Hmmm. I get: Sorry, YANAL was not found in the database. Gerrit -- =^..^=
Re: QT2 ready for ITP?
Gareth schrieb: woah, thats an old thread... Yep, I was on vacation:-) Thanks for the clarification (TFTC). Gerrit -- =^..^=
RE: QT2 ready for ITP?
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:51:08AM -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote: --- Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:14:50AM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote: Any comments ? Are there any licensing issues with qt? Is the open source license compliant with cygwin's? http://cygwin.com/licensing.html Ghostscript's license [The aladdin license (APFL?)] is much more restrictive than the QPL. If we are not in compliance with Ghostscript then that is a problem. It is entirely separate from whether qt is compatible with the GPL + Cygwin. If you were aware of issues with ghostcript you should have raised them. Besides when you compile QT, you'll get a screen which shows how the QPL is mutually inclusive of the GPL. So, if I show you a screen which says it's exclusive of the GPL, you'll just give up? Since I don't accept the word of every person with a web site out there who thinks they are compliant with the GPL, I don't see why I should accept the words of a screen. Is there an independent corroboration of this anywhere? This may not be an independent corroboration for you, but what Nicholas means is the screen below, which is printed before configuring qt and it said that one can choose the license beetwen qpl or GPL. It tells its own tale. ~/src/cvs.kde-cygwin.sf.net/qt-2 $ cygwin/configure.cygwin This is the Qt Free Edition. You are licensed to use this software under the terms of either the Q Public License (QPL) or the GNU General Public License (GPL). Type 'Q' to view the Q Public License. Type 'G' to view the GNU General Public License. Type 'yes' to accept this license offer. Type 'no' to decline this license offer. Do you accept the terms of the license? Ralf
RE: QT2 ready for ITP?
--- Ralf Habacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you wan't more ? The expression is: What more do you want? Cheers, Nicholas __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
RE: QT2 ready for ITP?
--- Nicholas Wourms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Ralf Habacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you wan't more ? The expression is: What more do you want? Cheers, Nicholas Arrrggg! I forgot about the Reply-To munging! Sorry, this wasn't intended for the list. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
RE: QT2 ready for ITP?
Well, then, why all of the fuss in cygwin-patches where you were trying to modify windows headers? It doesn't seem like this is an entirely unix port: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2002-q3/msg00175.html So, while this may have been discussed before, I'm not sure we had all of the details then. Well actually, it would be totally Win32 header free, if it weren't for the fact that Chris January added an original patch to better display current drives in konqueror. As for the dns stuff, that was already present in the Unix/X11 version, which is covered by the QPL/GPL. I think it is necessary to say detailed, what the changes on the qt port are. The qt-2 port of the qt/x11 is based on the official qt/x11-2.3.1 release from trolltech. Qt manages the platform specific parts in os specific files like filenane_x11.ext or filename_win32.ext. In the qt/x11 release the _win32. files are not contained, although some win32 code (dns code for example) is still contained with the lack of an os detection code, for which I have added code, based on an msdn example. Chris January has written some native stuff for file open/reading, I have added some native stuff for a faster Qdir implementation using Find(First|Next)File(). Does anyone see a problem with this ? Ralf
Re: QT2 ready for ITP?
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 01:35:34PM +0100, Ralf Habacker wrote: Since I don't accept the word of every person with a web site out there who thinks they are compliant with the GPL, I don't see why I should accept the words of a screen. Is there an independent corroboration of this anywhere? See what trolltech says about this http://www.trolltech.com/developer/licensing/index.html The Qt Free Edition (version 2.2 and later) is released under the Open Source license QPL, and GPL. The Qt Free Edition may be freely copied and distributed, put on ftp-sites and CD-ROMs etc. Qt Free Edition is provided with no warranty and no support. What do you wan't more ? Ok. I yield. I'll accept that the licensing for this package is in compliance with Cygwin's. Thanks for humoring me. cgf
RE: QT2 ready for ITP?
Ralf, Here is how I would like to do it: I aggree mostly with your view, but I see the best in dividing the stuff into the following packages (a) qtlib - qt dll without debug information and basic docs (REDAME's, etc.). This is the minimum for using additional qt applications and it should contain the basic docs (b) qttools or qtdevtools - qt development tool like designer (linguist, assistant for qt3) (c) qtdevel- import libs and header and qt docs for compiling qt applications (d) qtsource - contains all the source of the qt package from the kde-cygwin cvs (e...z) qt... additional 3rd party qt applications like qtmemory or xdu ... (for example the freeware from http://www.trolltech.com/developer/freesoftware/index.html) or doxygen or whatever you can imagine. This packaging is based on the fact that qt is an application development framework and tutorial and examples are not really needed for running qt applications, they are more lessons, which the users should do it yourself, so the qtlib must be available. The devel and tool packages are only necessary for developing qt-applications and they may be one packages, so that at least only the devel package remains. (a) qtlib - qt dll without debug information and basic docs (REDAME's, etc.). This is the minimum for using additional qt applications and it should contain the basic docs (b) qtdevel- import libs, header, docs and tools for compiling qt applications (c) qtsource - contains all the source of the qt package from the kde-cygwin cvs (d...z) qt... additional 3rd party qt applications like qtmemory or xdu ... (for example the freeware from http://www.trolltech.com/developer/freesoftware/index.html) or doxygen or whatever The one question, which is left is, should the source packages added (1) as separate package or should it be added (2) in a setup.ini source line of the qtlib od qtdevel package. I prefer adding the source package to the qtlib package, because this is the basic package. Probably we could add the qtsource package to the qtdevel package too, but I don't know if it works. If we want to have qt2 and qt3 coexisting, then we need to provide a suitable directory structure for the Cygwin mirrors. To prevent clobbering, and improper parsing by upset, we will put the packages in the following directory structure: qt/qt2.3/ - #1 #5 qt/qt2.3/libqt2.3/ - #2 qt/qt2.3/libqt2.3-devel/ - #3 qt/qt2.3/libqt2.3-extras/ - #4 In the cygwin release directory there are some examples for using major bases directory layouts, which contains several updates in one dir. ./libpng/libpng2/libpng2-1.0.12-1-src.tar.bz2 ./libpng/libpng2/libpng2-1.0.12-1.tar.bz2 ./libpng/libpng10/libpng10-1.0.14-2-src.tar.bz2 ./libpng/libpng10/libpng10-1.0.13-3-src.tar.bz2 ./libpng/libpng10/libpng10-1.0.13-1.tar.bz2 ./libpng/libpng10/libpng10-1.0.13-3.tar.bz2 ./libpng/libpng10/libpng10-1.0.14-2.tar.bz2 ./libpng/libpng12-devel/libpng12-devel-1.2.4-2.tar.bz2 ./libpng/libpng12-devel/libpng12-devel-1.2.3-1.tar.bz2 ./libpng/libpng12/libpng12-1.2.3-1.tar.bz2 ./libpng/libpng12/libpng12-1.2.4-2.tar.bz2 qt2 will not have any major abi changes in the future,so it is enough to build like that: qt/qt2/qtlib2/ qt/qt2/qtdevel2/ qt/qt2/qt/ (for additional qt applications) qt/qt2/qtlib2/ qtlib-2.3.1-1.tar.bz2 qtlib-2.3.1-1-src.tar.bz2 setup.hint qt/qt2/qtdevel2/ qtdevel-2.3.1-1.tar.bz2 setup.hint qt/qt2/qt.../ qt...-x.y.z-n.tar.bz2 qt...-x.y.z-n-src.tar.bz2 setup.hint for qt3 we could do in the same manner except that we us qt/qt3/qtlib3/ qt/qt3/qtdevel3/ qt/qt3/qt/ (for additional qt applications) (b)'s applications will be transformed from foo.exe to foo_2.3.exe during make install. A post-install script will make symlinks to the standard names of the applications. I see no need for this. Because the qt2 abi will not be changed a simple etc/profile.d script would do the things needed for setting the propper environment: $cat /etc/profile.d/qt2.sh export QTDIR=/usr/lib/qt2 export PATH=$QTDIR/bin:$PATH export MANPATH=$MANPATH:$QTDIR/doc/man Of cource it means that all qt application shoud be installed into /usr/lib/qt2, which is true for the basic qt tools. What about 3rdparty qt packages. Where should they been installed ? Also in /usr/lib/qt2 or should Any comments ? Ralf Ralf
Re: QT2 ready for ITP?
--- Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:14:50AM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote: Any comments ? Are there any licensing issues with qt? Is the open source license compliant with cygwin's? http://cygwin.com/licensing.html Ghostscript's license [The aladdin license (APFL?)] is much more restrictive than the QPL. Besides when you compile QT, you'll get a screen which shows how the QPL is mutually inclusive of the GPL. So I'd say there are not any issues like there were back in the day with the Rasterman/deIcaza GTK/GNOME vs. Trolltech QT/KDE battles. [Ahh brings back memories...] Cheers, Nicholas P.S. - Corinna already asked this question... ;-) __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
Re: QT2 ready for ITP?
--- Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:41:41AM -0400, Chris Faylor wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:14:50AM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote: Any comments ? Are there any licensing issues with qt? Is the open source license compliant with cygwin's? http://cygwin.com/licensing.html Personally I have still problems with the phrase [...] we have released the Qt for Unix/X11 library free of charge I am only porting the Unix/X11 codebase, which is *not* the same as the Win32 codebase. So we are using the code specified in the first part of this sentence. for development of free software for X11. Since this is being ported as an X11 library target for use in Free Software development, I'd say we satisified the second part of this sentence. in the QPL. What bugs me is the word Unix. Cygwin is not Unix but it's... well, some sort of plug in to Windows, isn't it? I hate to say that. Again, I must point out that the core QT/Win32 API is a totally different codebase, at least in terms of hidden code (private). This is why I think that clause is in there, to prevent people from thinking their QT/Win32 API falls under these terms. Cheers, Nicholas P.S. - Many attempts [over 6+ months] have been made to contact Trolltech regarding this, yet no reply is forthcoming. Therefore, we have satisfied the legal obligations, since it was their responsibility to pose any objections, which they have not. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
Re: QT2 ready for ITP?
We talked about QT licenses a week or two ago. The X11 version of QT is GPL'd. The Win32 version is not GPL'd (the last I remember), but that doesn't matter because Nicholas is only building a Cygwin/XFree86-dependent version using the X11 QT. So, the question should have been, ``Is ___ GPL'd code compatible with Cygwin's modified-GPL?'', to which the answer would have been, ``Yes.'' Harold
Re: QT2 ready for ITP?
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 08:00:59AM -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote: in the QPL. What bugs me is the word Unix. Cygwin is not Unix but it's... well, some sort of plug in to Windows, isn't it? I hate to say that. Again, I must point out that the core QT/Win32 API is a totally different codebase, at least in terms of hidden code (private). This is why I think that clause is in there, to prevent people from thinking their QT/Win32 API falls under these terms. Well, then, why all of the fuss in cygwin-patches where you were trying to modify windows headers? It doesn't seem like this is an entirely unix port: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2002-q3/msg00175.html So, while this may have been discussed before, I'm not sure we had all of the details then. P.S. - Many attempts [over 6+ months] have been made to contact Trolltech regarding this, yet no reply is forthcoming. Therefore, we have satisfied the legal obligations, since it was their responsibility to pose any objections, which they have not. Well, AFAIK, YANAL and IANAL, so I don't know how you can make definitive legal pronouncements and I certainly am not going to accept your say so on this. cgf
Re: QT2 ready for ITP?
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:51:08AM -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote: --- Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:14:50AM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote: Any comments ? Are there any licensing issues with qt? Is the open source license compliant with cygwin's? http://cygwin.com/licensing.html Ghostscript's license [The aladdin license (APFL?)] is much more restrictive than the QPL. If we are not in compliance with Ghostscript then that is a problem. It is entirely separate from whether qt is compatible with the GPL + Cygwin. If you were aware of issues with ghostcript you should have raised them. Besides when you compile QT, you'll get a screen which shows how the QPL is mutually inclusive of the GPL. So, if I show you a screen which says it's exclusive of the GPL, you'll just give up? Since I don't accept the word of every person with a web site out there who thinks they are compliant with the GPL, I don't see why I should accept the words of a screen. Is there an independent corroboration of this anywhere? cgf
Re: QT2 ready for ITP?
--- Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 08:00:59AM -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote: in the QPL. What bugs me is the word Unix. Cygwin is not Unix but it's... well, some sort of plug in to Windows, isn't it? I hate to say that. Again, I must point out that the core QT/Win32 API is a totally different codebase, at least in terms of hidden code (private). This is why I think that clause is in there, to prevent people from thinking their QT/Win32 API falls under these terms. Well, then, why all of the fuss in cygwin-patches where you were trying to modify windows headers? It doesn't seem like this is an entirely unix port: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2002-q3/msg00175.html So, while this may have been discussed before, I'm not sure we had all of the details then. Well actually, it would be totally Win32 header free, if it weren't for the fact that Chris January added an original patch to better display current drives in konqueror. As for the dns stuff, that was already present in the Unix/X11 version, which is covered by the QPL/GPL. P.S. - Many attempts [over 6+ months] have been made to contact Trolltech regarding this, yet no reply is forthcoming. Therefore, we have satisfied the legal obligations, since it was their responsibility to pose any objections, which they have not. Well, AFAIK, YANAL and IANAL, so I don't know how you can make Can we please cut out the acronyms? We should be respectful of Ralf and others for whom English is a second[or third, etc.] language. definitive legal pronouncements and I certainly am not going to accept your say so on this. Fine, that is your perogative. I have no doubt that RedHat has a crackshot legal dept., so why not wing the QT/X11 QPL their way and see what they have to say? I'm sure they would be in the position to provide a definitive, authoritative answer to your question. I do understand your concerns, and believe me when I say that the last thing I would want is for RedHat to be sued [since my portfolio consists of a moderate amount of RedHat shares]. So, I will do my best to work with you to resolve this issue. Otherwise, I guess qt will never be a part of Cygwin. Cheers, __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
Re: QT2 ready for ITP?
--- Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:51:08AM -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote: --- Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:14:50AM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote: Any comments ? Are there any licensing issues with qt? Is the open source license compliant with cygwin's? http://cygwin.com/licensing.html Ghostscript's license [The aladdin license (APFL?)] is much more restrictive than the QPL. If we are not in compliance with Ghostscript then that is a problem. It is entirely separate from whether qt is compatible with the GPL + Cygwin. If you were aware of issues with ghostcript you should have raised them. Ok, I was mistaken, it turns out they released the GNU version back in April [non-AFPL]. They usually lag behind about 6-8 months with the GNU version, so I was thinking that he used the APFL version. Anyhow, just a false alarm. Besides when you compile QT, you'll get a screen which shows how the QPL is mutually inclusive of the GPL. So, if I show you a screen which says it's exclusive of the GPL, you'll just give up? Since I don't accept the word of every person with a web site out there who thinks they are compliant with the GPL, I don't see why I should accept the words of a screen. Is there an independent corroboration of this anywhere? Check out the suggestion in my reply to your last post. You may or may not like it, but I think it would provide the definitive, independant counsel you need in this matter. Otherwise, I guess I will have to give up, since it is you, not I, who runs this project. Cheers, Nicholas __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
Re: QT2 ready for ITP?
Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:57:36AM -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote: --- Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, AFAIK, YANAL and IANAL, so I don't know how you can make Can we please cut out the acronyms? We should be respectful of Ralf and others for whom English is a second[or third, etc.] language. Why? I'm non-native, too, but actually I'm using acronyms as well. *And* I have this one: http://www.acronymfinder.com/ Corinna Now that you guys mentioned it... what the heck is ITP? Initial Trials Phase? Harold
Re: QT2 ready for ITP?
--- Harold L Hunt II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:57:36AM -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote: --- Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, AFAIK, YANAL and IANAL, so I don't know how you can make Can we please cut out the acronyms? We should be respectful of Ralf and others for whom English is a second[or third, etc.] language. Why? I'm non-native, too, but actually I'm using acronyms as well. *And* I have this one: http://www.acronymfinder.com/ Corinna Now that you guys mentioned it... what the heck is ITP? Initial Trials Phase? Intent To Package? Cheers, Nicholas __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
