On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 09:55:42PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > >And the answer, I think, is that if they did, the pieces of software > > >which weren't originally written for Qt would stand out. And, a KDE with > > >those pieces missing would be a lot less attractive than KDE as a whole. > > I heard a major KDE developer saying exactly this: Acknowledging that there > is a licensing problem would exclude all third party GPL code from their use. Not like developers would never grant them permission to use 3rd party code if they cared enough to ask, just that they don't think they should have to take the time. Forgiveness is easier to get than permission after all. I think a revival of Harmony is necessary. And not for the sake of KDE, but because Qt's interface is better than most C++ GUI libs out there for Linux to be sure. And if we can't have a GPL-compatible Qt, we may as well reimplement the thing for our own sakes. To hell with KDE, I have applications which I'd love to write for a truly GPL-compatible Qt--but I am unwilling to compromise on the GPL as a license. Not after all of this. -- Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian Linux developer http://tank.debian.net GnuPG key pub 1024D/DCF9DAB3 sub 2048g/3F9C2A43 http://www.debian.org 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 <raptor> Adamel, i think the code you fixed of mine didn't work <raptor> i must not have commited the working code <Knghtbrd> raptor: like it's the first time THAT has ever happened =p
Attachment:
pgpHfDX1csofH.pgp
Description: PGP signature