Re: QT non-free but becoming compatible to debian? (was Re: Qt license change)
Montreal Fri Nov 20 19:13:29 1998
Hamish Moffatt <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
I think the real shame is that the GPL is not OpenSource friendly.
GPL only knows of itself or other licenses that it can cannibalise (so
called virus effect).