Re: Double Standard?
Terry Dawson wrote:
> David Johnson wrote:
> > I didn't check for every GPL application that uses Qt, only one example
> > is sufficient. The package licq 0.44-4, in stable, uses the Qt library,
> > along with being licensed under the GPL. It does not have any additional
> > clauses at all. I looked. I didn't find any.
> If that was the case for 0.44-4 it has certainly been corrected in
> current versions.
> There is a clearly stated exception in /usr/doc/licq/copyright for the
> licq-plugins-qt2 plugin.
Curiouser and Curiouser. I looked again and I couldn't find it. So I
looked harder. There it was, hidden in
./licq-0.75.3a/plugins/qt-gui-0.70.4/doc, four levels down.
My apologies to the list. I had always assumed that licq dynamically
linked to Qt, instead of the apparent runtime linking that RMS
specifically allows. I figured if main.cpp did not have an exception,
then neither did the rest of the program (that's where I would put it at
the minimum). But licq is apparently two programs, one of which has an
exception, and the other that does not but whose configure script links
I will now go and hang my head in shame.