On Nov 20, 2007 12:34 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 20, 2007 11:18 AM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. Stopping distribution of > > semi-proprietary apps that use a Qt commercial license is the issue. > > I'm looking around to see if there have been any flaps over this. > > Meanwhile, here's their license overview. > > http://trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing > > I'm perusing the Debian Free Software Guidelines. > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-dfsg > IANAL, nor am I a Debian archivist. But it looks like distributing > QtDialog without dual licensing it under the GPL is in violation of > the DFSG. "You could link this code if you bought a commercial > license from Qt" doesn't fit the wording of the DFSG, nor probably the > sensibility of the people who enforce it. > > Bill, I'd like to point out the potential negative consequences of > taking a hard "I like Qt but I don't like the GPL" stance. It could > create the impression that CMake is "bad and non-free" in the Linux > world, where no such impression previously exists. I wouldn't risk > doing it and seeing if anyone enforces. Once an enforcement happens, > it will take forever for CMake to recover the damage to its > reputation. Religious issues over licensing tend to have snowball / > Slashdot effects; you can expect noise. Especially from the Autoconf > crowd who will be granted lotsa ammo from such a flap. > > Respectfully, I suggest you dual license it or don't include it at > all. It's not worth the risk. > > > > Cheers, > Brandon Van Every
Um.. How does ParaView 3 work then? It is built against Qt and distributed as opensource? -- Mike Jackson imikejackson _at_ gee-mail dot com _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list [email protected] http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
