Re: C++ ...

["Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando" <gorlando@futuretg.com>]

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
> > > implements.
> > 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

   http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html

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.

Thanks,
Giovanni

--

--
 Future Technologies, The TOTAL Linux Company!

  http://www.futuretg.com
  ftp://ftp.futuretg.com/
  mailto:gorlando@futuretg.com

  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