Re: QT non-free but becoming compatible to debian? (was Re: Qt license change)

[john@dhh.gt.org]

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.
john@dhh.gt.org		   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.