Re: QT non-free but becoming compatible to debian? (was Re: Qt license change)
Navindra Umanee writes:
> Doesn't Qt deserve Motif-like status as a system library?
I think it would have to be at least 'standard' for that.
> Qt can be one of the GUI APIs of free Unix (of course, GTK+ would be the
> another). Then, Qt would be perfectly compatible with GPL and LGPL.
> (I'm referring to this reasonable clause in the GPL:
> However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
> include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
> binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on)
> of the operating system on which the executable runs,
> unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
I think this means that if a GPL-incompatible library becomes a system
library in an OS no GPL programs can be distributed with the OS. I don't
think that is what RMS intended, but that's how it reads to me.
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
email@example.com Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.