Re: QT2 ready for ITP?

[Nicholas Wourms <nwourms at yahoo dot com>]

--- Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:51:08AM -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> >
> >--- Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> 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
> >> 
> >
> >Ghostscript's license [The aladdin license (APFL?)] is much more
> >restrictive than the QPL.
> 
> If we are not in compliance with Ghostscript then that is a
> problem.  It
> is entirely separate from whether qt is compatible with the GPL +
> Cygwin.  If you were aware of issues with ghostcript you should
> have
> raised them.

Ok, I was mistaken, it turns out they released the GNU version back
in April [non-AFPL].  They usually lag behind about 6-8 months with
the GNU version, so I was thinking that he used the APFL version. 
Anyhow, just a false alarm.

> >Besides when you compile QT, you'll get a screen which shows how
> the
> >QPL is mutually inclusive of the GPL.
> 
> So, if I show you a screen which says it's exclusive of the GPL,
> you'll
> just give up?
> 
> Since I don't accept the word of every person with a web site out
> there
> who thinks they are compliant with the GPL, I don't see why I
> should accept
> the words of a screen.  Is there an independent corroboration of
> this anywhere?

Check out the suggestion in my reply to your last post.  You may or
may not like it, but I think it would provide the definitive,
independant counsel you need in this matter.  Otherwise, I guess I
will have to give up, since it is you, not I, who runs this project.

Cheers,
Nicholas

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