Re: Corel Setup Design Proposal
- To: Dave Neil <davidne@corel.CA>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Corel Setup Design Proposal
- From: Ben Pfaff <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: 06 May 1999 17:38:36 -0400
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: Dave Neil's message of "Thu, 06 May 1999 17:51:22 -0400"
- References: <3731BB4E.BDB5CD95@corel.com> <19990506171657.J22415@maxime.u-strasbg.fr> <19990506104426.A24448@velocity> <19990506175216.M22415@maxime.u-strasbg.fr> <3731CA85.431DBF4A@corel.com> <19990506192431.A30802@molec3.dfis.ull.es> <3731F717.D7F299C8@corel.com> <email@example.com> <37320EDA.75129A0A@corel.com>
[Note: I am moving this to debian-legal, where it belongs.]
Dave Neil <davidne@corel.CA> writes:
> At this point I'm going to reiterate my concern about linking Qt to
> the GPL'd boot floppies code. Don't do it, it's a violation of
> license as far as I can tell.
Bottom line is that Debian has publicly supported QT2's license. If not then how
about clearing this issue up publicly, have you or not?
The conclusion that we came to, I believe, is that Qt 2.0 is DFSG-free
(Open Source). That doesn't mean that it's GPL compatible (it's not,
IIRC)), which is a separate issue.
Please read the debian-legal archives for more information. You can
find them at
The most relevant months are Nov and Dec 1998. There may also be some
relevant messages in the debian-devel archive.
I am not trying to say that Qt is a bad library or that its licensing
is bad in some way, BTW. But its license is not compatible with the
"It takes a certain amount of shamelessness
to be a monomaniac billionaire dwarf."
--Jon Katz <URL:http://slashdot.org/articles/99/03/17/1634238.shtml>