On Thu, Nov 19, 1998 at 12:34:23PM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote: > Joseph Carter <email@example.com> writes: > > > > One time GPL - Always _GPL_. > > > One time QPL - Always Open Source. > > > If that were the case it'd be no problem since the GPL is an OSS license. > > It will be a problem, but the problem is not QPL, it is GPL. > > I can't make a GPLed program that demands a not GPLed library, and > that's the problem with KDE. They try to make a GPLed program that > demands a GPLed library. Yes you can, see the rant I just finished posting seconds ago so I don't have to dig out a cluebat.. Think X. > I think we can have Qt and with a litle exception to the license the > core of KDE in main. We will still have problems with the new > user interfaces to old GPLed programs. > > But then again, let wait till someone we all thrust have looked it > over. (As new on the list I take you words for whom I can thrust) The problem is less than you think it is, REALLY. I promise, I've been reading licenses over and over the past 24 hours. The GPL is not that anal about what licenses are allowed. -- Show me the code or get out of my way.
Description: PGP signature