Re: Your petition to GPL Qt
Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Kevin Forge <email@example.com> writes:
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > In order for QT to qualify as a Debian system library it would have to be a
> > 'required' package, and it would drag in X. No way are we going to bloat
> > the system like that. The 'system library' idea thus fails for purely
> > technical reasons.
> X is required for a Desktop system. [...]
> That's simply not true. I've run machines quite happily on my desktop
> without ever installing X.
You didn't read the rest of my post did you ? The part about Running a
1 meg Windows 95 instalation so I can play Quake. Sure you can do
it quite hapily. However it's still considerd a system lib for the sole
reason that the vendor chooses to call it one. Take a look at the many
Solaris installations that don't include X. Then tell me if there is
other criteria by which Motif became a system lib on Solaris.
Here are the parallels so work with me a bit.
1 : BSDI didn't write Motif and Debian didn't write QT.
2 : BSDI uses Motif by complying with the license from the Open group
( The pay money ). Debian bundles QT since the QPL will allow that
within the DFSG.
3 : BSDI is really just distributing a huge bundle of software developed
by an OSS/FS community coupled with a few home brewed enhancements.
( Just like Debian ).
Now when you can get back to me with an explanation of how to make
Motif a System lib on Solaris and not make QT ( under the QPL ) one
in Debian or any other Linux distribution that chooses to bundle it
we can talk farther. ( Note :- Debian has not decided to bundle it
yet and will wait to see if the final license is "acceptable" ).