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

Re: C++ ...

Wichmann, Mats D wrote:

C++ "instability":

May this lacks be solved? ... Or is a theorical C++
problem without
solutions ?

The solution to the C++ problem is for vendors to adopt
soon-to-be-released GCC 3.1 as their system compiler. The
LSB will be

adopting "The V3 multi-vendor standard C++ ABI" that GCC 3.1

If it's just blocking for a short time, no problem. So please ignore my previous messages.

We tried to choose the words carefully, "blocked" (maybe the
block can be removed) vs. "rejected", for example.

Even once the C++ ABI is included, KDE still has a major blocking
issue in the Qt QPL license.  The LSB is designed to provide a
platform for software developers to use without restriction or
licensing fees for any use whatsoever. Unfortunately the QPL does not
provide that facility to LSB Applications.

rpm -qi libqt2-2.3.1-29mdk
Name : libqt2 Relocations: (not relocateable)
License: GPL & QPL

So far, the LSB has not specified anything which has a different
license depending on how you use it.  All libraries have been
of the form that you can link your application with them without
affecting the way you distribute your application.  Many fine
pieces of software, for example Qt, Berkeley DB, MySQL (server
part), are offered under a dual license that says you may choose GPL, meaning your application also becomes subject to the terms of GPL and you must distribute source, OR you may buy a commercial license to bundle it into an application that does not offer
source code.  Or some variant on that theme, this wasn't intended
to be a legal description but a practical one.

We haven't figured out what to do with those; there's been some
significant concern expressed about including such things in a
standard as "required" parts.

Thus the term "blocked" applied to Qt: it's not a complaint
against TrollTech, just that we don't yet know what to do with
technology under such licenses.  Nor have we necessarily
asked them what they would think about being included in
a standard not of their own making, and that should also be
a part of the process.

I suppose that Troll would do any possible effort to be included in LSB (as a component or as the choice).

Personally, I suppose that its "OpenSource complaint" license is sufficient.

Note that at


its license is listed "without any restriction" or at the same level if you prefer that:

GNU GPL, LGPL, Mozilla Public License, Apache, MIT License (X11), BSD License and others.

Therefore, for me their step was done, and nothing is requeried.

However, ...

In any case I suppose they would be happy to feedback with us in this direction.



 Future Technologies, The TOTAL Linux Company!


  Italia:                          USA
  Via Cairoli, 1                   1620 26th Street - 3rd floor South Tower
  33170 - Pordenone (PN)           Santa Monica - CA

  Telefono: +39 0434 - 209 107.
  Fax:      +39 0434 - 209 510.

	http://www.FTLinuxCourse.com -  The best training product ever made!
	http://www.futuretg.com/FTOSX - The best Operating System ever made!
	http://www.LinuxUtilities.org - The most incredible and original Utilities for Linux!
	http://www.LinuxWebCampus.com - The Web site for Linux E-Training !


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-spec-request@lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org

Reply to: