Re: Please do not use Qt (fwd)
This was a _private_ email! How did this wind up on TWO mailing
lists?
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Martin Konold wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Richard G. Roberto wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Martin Konold wrote:
> > > On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> >
> > Then they can't be GPL'd. You should read the license. It
> > prohibits modification restrictions (which QT has).
>
> Of course the apps CAN be gpled! Even if they have to be linked against
> some commercial libs.
> There are hundreds of gpled Motif based pieces of software out there.
> You are not allowed to distribute changed version of the library but you
> are welcome to change the gpled application as you like.
>
> > > Soon LyX will also be Qt based.
> > >
> >
> > That's too bad, I kind of like lyx.
>
> Obviously, you unfortunately do not know hwat you are talking about,
> sorry.
Based on Ian's post to the list, quoting the license.
>
> The very first versions of LyX have been Motif 1.2 based.
> This had the BIG disadvantage that the co developers did not want to buy
> the commercial Motif stuff.
I wouldn't have used the motif version either.
>
> Matthias then switched to Xforms. They most recent stable beta is based on
> Xform 0.81. Xforms is free of charge for non commercial use.
> The developers do NOT provide their source code. Xforms is limited
> due to time constraints of the two developers.
Again, I'm sorry to hear about the trouble lyx has had, but that
doesn't make QT any more viable for mainstream debian packages.
(I'm basing this on numerous posts from other debian dudes.)
>
> LyX will in the near future switch to Qt. Qt is in contrast to Xforms
> available free of charge to the freeware community and much more important
> it is WITH source code!
> It has also advantages from the programmers point of view. (C++...)
>
> So even for the GNU purists it must be evident, that Qt is LESS
> restricting than the Xforms license.
>
> How does it come that you are talking about stuff you do not understand.
Call it a gift ;)
>
> I personally would appreciate something like alladins license for
> ghostscript beeing applied for Qt.
>
> But Qt is still a very new, but promising project.
>
> > You never got back to me on the kterm issue. It seems to me that
> > the KDE kterm is _not_ the same as the long standing JE version
> > of xterm of the same name. This is poor netiquette at best and
> > micro$oft like behavior at worst. What's the deal? This QT/KDE
> > mentality is rubbing the wrong way already.
>
> kterm is neither directly based on the JE version of xterm nor on xterm
> but on rxvt(which is not gpl, but free).
I think you miss the point. You are naming the QT version of
rxvt "kterm" which is a binary name already in wide spread use.
Perhaps you and your friends should try pulling your heads out of
your rectums. In the mean time, this post is the last I'll make
to the _LIST_ on this subject. I'd be happy to beat on you some
more privately.
Richard G. Roberto
richr@bear.com
011-81-3-3437-7967 - Tokyo, Japan
--
*******************************************************************************
Bear Stearns is not responsible for any recommendation, solicitation, offer or
agreement or any information about any transaction, customer account or account
activity contained in this communication.
*******************************************************************************
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: