On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Craig Sanders wrote:
Thanks Lars and Craig for your great inputs on the subject.
This will be my last follow up to this subject on the mailing lists.
I do think that the discussion should not continue on these ml's.
If you want to continue you are welcome to join the kde ml,
On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Martin Konold wrote:
> No the point is that Qt will be used to make the Unix Desktop
> Environement. There is no goal so far to port the kde to none unix
> environments. Portability is not the issue, but nice look&feel for the
> unix desktop users.
>
> Most kde people do not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Dear Debianists:
On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> This discussion of the Qt copyright is beginning to sound like
> a flame war. Could we please end it and do something productive
> instead?
Or, let's move it to debian-talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> [ Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list. ]
>
> This discussion of the Qt copyright is beginning to sound like
> a flame war. Could we please end it and do something productive
> instead?
I second the motion.
>
> Summa
This was a _private_ email! How did this wind up on TWO mailing
lists?
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Martin Konold wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Richard G. Roberto wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Martin Konold wrote:
> > > On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> >
> > Then they can't be GPL'd
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Jonas Bofjall wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, William Burrow wrote:
>
> > While the Qt authors may have different concerns than Knuth does over
> > TeX, the idea may be the same: modified versions may reflect badly on
> > Troll Tech.
>
> This is not the whole story, since i
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Buddha M Buck wrote:
> In any event, Motif is -not- required for Xemacs in the same way that
> Qt would be required for LyX.
True, you may also use Athena widgets. Maybe others too.
> > You did not tell in which respect the Xforms license is less restricting
> > than the Q
On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > like Pandora's box. Programs relying on the old Qt will function as
> > always. Free programs relying on the new, unreleased, pay-for-it Qt...
> > well, there just won't be many of those around.
>
> If there were no bugs in that "free" version.
I al
William Burrow wrote:
>
> Well, you see, once the source code has been released, it is somewhat
> like Pandora's box. Programs relying on the old Qt will function as
> always. Free programs relying on the new, unreleased, pay-for-it Qt...
> well, there just won't be many of those around.
If
On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Herbert Xu wrote:
> This is not the point. They can release it under any
> license as long as they allow other people to release
> modified versions, even if it has to be under a
> different name. This is so that the applications
> won't get caught when Troll stops releasing
[ Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list. ]
This discussion of the Qt copyright is beginning to sound like
a flame war. Could we please end it and do something productive
instead?
Summary:
- Debian has a policy about copyrights, and it's not likely
c
William Burrow wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> > Yes. However, we still might look askance at Qt due to the other licensing
> > terms, which are more restrictive than the GPL, especially since V (another
> > C++ GUI) is under the GPL.
> >
> > Please understand I'm not maki
Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> > There are hundreds of gpled Motif based pieces of software out there.
>
> Name 5.By your assertion, I could modify GNU Emacs to use Motif
> widgets, and distribute the modified version freely, under the GPL. I
> am certain that if I were to
>
> On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Buddha Buck wrote:
>
> > > Of course the apps CAN be gpled! Even if they have to be linked against
> > > some commercial libs.
> > Not by my reading of the GPL.
> > > There are hundreds of gpled Motif based pieces of software out there.
> >
> > Name 5.By your asserti
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > Of course the apps CAN be gpled! Even if they have to be linked against
> > some commercial libs.
> Not by my reading of the GPL.
> > There are hundreds of gpled Motif based pieces of software out there.
>
> Name 5.By your assertion, I could modify
> On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Richard G. Roberto wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Martin Konold wrote:
> > > On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> >
> > Then they can't be GPL'd. You should read the license. It
> > prohibits modification restrictions (which QT has).
>
> Of course the apps C
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, William Burrow wrote:
> While the Qt authors may have different concerns than Knuth does over
> TeX, the idea may be the same: modified versions may reflect badly on
> Troll Tech.
This is not the whole story, since it is only their X version that is free
for non-commercial
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Richard G. Roberto wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Martin Konold wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
>
> Then they can't be GPL'd. You should read the license. It
> prohibits modification restrictions (which QT has).
Of course the apps CAN be gpled! Eve
On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Yes. However, we still might look askance at Qt due to the other licensing
> terms, which are more restrictive than the GPL, especially since V (another
> C++ GUI) is under the GPL.
>
> Please understand I'm not making a technical criticisim. I just wish
> Martin Konold wrote:
> > On 20 Nov 1996, Arnt Gulbrandsen (Troll) wrote:
> > > As I said wrote earlier, the license doesn't limit distribution in any
> > > way which is particularly relevant to CD distribution. Quoting:
[snip]
> > Ok, I will forward this to the cdrom producers/Debian people.
[sn
Martin Konold wrote:
>
> On 20 Nov 1996, Arnt Gulbrandsen (Troll) wrote:
>
> > As I said wrote earlier, the license doesn't limit distribution in any
> > way which is particularly relevant to CD distribution. Quoting:
> >
> > You may copy this version of the Qt toolkit provided that the
>
:
: Martin,
:
: As I read this, that "unchanged" word would prevent us from building a
: Debian binary package of Qt and distributing that. That's a very serious
: restriction.
:
: Thanks
:
: Bruce
:
: From: Martin Konold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: On 20 Nov 1996, Arnt Gulbrandsen (Trol
Martin,
As I read this, that "unchanged" word would prevent us from building a
Debian binary package of Qt and distributing that. That's a very serious
restriction.
Thanks
Bruce
From: Martin Konold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 20 Nov 1996, Arnt Gulbrandsen (Troll) wrote:
> As I said w
On 20 Nov 1996, Arnt Gulbrandsen (Troll) wrote:
> As I said wrote earlier, the license doesn't limit distribution in any
> way which is particularly relevant to CD distribution. Quoting:
>
> You may copy this version of the Qt toolkit provided that the
> entire archive is distributed
I'm sorry that Qt has that messed-up license. It does severely restrict
its usefulness.
A good substitute for "Qt" can be found in the "vx" package in
"unstable". It's another C++ GUI package.
Thanks
Bruce
--
Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAIL
Martin Konold writes:
> Qt comes with source. Any gpled sw can be distributed with soure or
> binary of Qt.
No, I believe you are wrong (or at least, that the issue is _much_
more complicated than you suggest). The GPL requires:
2. [ source code distribution and modification ]
...
b) You
26 matches
Mail list logo
