Hi Michael, On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 12:03 +0800, Michael Clark wrote: > Hi Martin, > > Martin Langsjoen wrote: > > [snip] > > There are some issues that remains to be sorted out. George Makrydakis > > points out some interesting issues in this blog: "LGPL 2.1, Qt 4.5 and C > > ++ templates" - > > http://lab.obsethryl.eu/content/lgpl-21-qt-45-and-c-templates > > > > It seems like this issue is already forwarded to the license lawyers at > > Nokia. The future is promising. > > > > Wow! This is a very interesting issue. > > If my reading is correct, as it stands, even with an LGPL 2.1 license, > Qt can still not be used in a propriety/commercial/closed-source > application. C++ template instantiation would mean violating the LGPL > licenses requirement of being able to substitute the library for an > alternative modified version; as the template instantiated code would be > linked directly into the proprietary app and not be able to be > substituted by substituting the Qt shared library. > > I really do hope they amend their license with an allowance for this as > I imagine it is their intention to allow commercial apps to use the open > source version of Qt. > > BTW - Thanks very much for your enlightened dialog. > > Michael.
This would be the next big debate if it is not worked out. I guess there are other issues that will come up in the coming weeks. It is natural with some complexity in this prosess. Looking forward to hear more from the Gnome community and companies like Red Hat, Sun, and Canonical. -martin _______________________________________________ Slugnet mailing list [email protected] http://wiki.lugs.org.sg/LugsMailingListFaq http://www.lugs.org.sg/mailman/listinfo/slugnet
