Re: QT2 ready for ITP?

[Nicholas Wourms <nwourms at yahoo dot com>]

--- Corinna Vinschen <cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:41:41AM -0400, Chris Faylor wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:14:50AM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote:
> > >Any comments ?
> > 
> > Are there any licensing issues with qt?  Is the open source
> license compliant
> > with cygwin's?
> > 
> > http://cygwin.com/licensing.html
> 
> Personally I have still problems with the phrase
> 
> "[...] we have released the Qt for Unix/X11 library free of charge

I am only porting the Unix/X11 codebase, which is *not* the same as
the Win32 codebase.  So we are using the code specified in the first
part of this sentence.

> for development of free software for X11."

Since this is being ported as an X11 library target for use in Free
Software development, I'd say we satisified the second part of this
sentence.

> in the QPL.  What bugs me is the word "Unix".  Cygwin is not Unix
> but it's... well, some sort of plug in to Windows, isn't it?  I
> hate to say that.

Again, I must point out that the core QT/Win32 API is a totally
different codebase, at least in terms of hidden code (private).  This
is why I think that clause is in there, to prevent people from
thinking their QT/Win32 API falls under these terms.

Cheers,
Nicholas

P.S. - Many attempts [over 6+ months] have been made to contact
Trolltech regarding this, yet no reply is forthcoming.  Therefore, we
have satisfied the legal obligations, since it was their
responsibility to pose any objections, which they have not.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com