Re: QT non-free but becoming compatible to debian? (was Re: Qt license change)
On Fri, Nov 20, 1998 at 03:29:50PM -0500, Navindra Umanee wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 1998 at 03:38:08AM -0500, Navindra Umanee wrote:
> > > Why? Doesn't Qt deserve Motif-like status as a system library? Motif
> > We don't have any such magic libraries to date. We don't have a standard
> > Motif system library, either.
> Exactly, which is why there is a void to be filled, IHHO. In this day
> and time we need GUI APIs that developers can target. Qt and GTK+
> both qualify and both have their points.
I meant that we have not had to use the "system library" loophole to date.
It would be a shame to have to now.
> Btw, I clearly see mozilla-smotif in:
> So might you be wrong about the Motif thing?
-smotif means it is statically linked against Motif (as opposed to
-dmotif, which means it is dynamically linked against Motif,
as opposed to being linked to LessTif).
Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org