Zitat von Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Nov 20, 2007 8:36 AM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hendrik Sattler wrote:
>> Anyway, the GPL stuff still stands.
>
> Why don't you make the Qt dialog source GPL, then?
> With those restrictions, some Linux distributions will either strip the
> Qt dialog from the source or move whole cmake to an unofficial
> repository. Allowing everyone to change the source code (and distribute
> the result) is greatly preferred.
>
People can change it all they want, it just won't get accepted upstream.
I don't want to be forced to accept a license that I don't agree
with. BTW, qt itself has the same sort of license. Trolltech does not
accept changes from the community other than small bug fixes. This is
so they can maintain the dual license that they have. I don't think
there are linux distros that have stopped distribution of Qt are there?
Stopping distribution of Qt isn't the issue.
I am not a lawyer but as I read the Qt license, I am not allowed to
link the GPLed version of Qt to an application that is not GPLed
itself. For binary distribution of applications, this is not an issue,
even if you ship the source with it. But you are not allowed to build
it on your own unless you have a commercial Qt license (although it
would work just fine). None of the distributions match have such a
license.
HS
_______________________________________________
CMake mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
