[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: wxWindows licence

On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 11:56:08PM +0100, Diana Galletly wrote:
> > Or even, potentially, GPL, if rumours about future releases of Qt turn
> > out to be true, and I finally get on with writing the wxQt port.

[ disclaimer for following rant; you asked ;-) wx-devel have already
heard this at great and tedious length ]

> If you think Troll Tech would be happy with such a development (and regard
> not it as competition with their version of Qt for Win32), then I urge you
> to contact them and them know of your intentions.  It's important to get
> them associating "GPL compatibility" with "more mindshare" -- especially so
> since I honestly believe that will prove to be true.

I contacted Troll Tech on the 23rd of March of this year stating my wish
to port wxWindows to Qt.  I let them see a copy of the wxWindows license
and inquired about whether question 22 of the FAQ for the Qt Free Edition
meant that wxQt would need to be released under the QPL (ick!)

I was met with resounding silence.  On the 29th of April I then forwarded
my original message (which had been sent to info@trolltech.com) to
someone who I had discovered worked for Troll Tech.  They weren't
officially qualified to answer my question, but their unofficial answer
was that I'd need to QPL the port.  They said they'd ask the appropriate
person.  On the 4th of May I then contacted them again, and they said
that "the appropriate person is in Australia".

This is the last I've heard from them.  Joseph Carter will, I presume,
be unsurprised.

> On the other hand, if you think they WOULD be unhappy with the development
> of wxQt, please keep quiet so they're not discouraged from putting Qt under
> a proper license.  :)

I'm holding fire on beginning development or anything until I know whether
they intend to GPL it.  They already know about the proposed wxQt (before 
the GPL rumours started happening, I believe);  they *may* regard it as
competeition, but we're already that anyway ...


Reply to: