[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 20 November 2007 10:45:56 am Mike Jackson wrote:
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?
I get the impression Brandon thinks the QtDialog code is proprietary.
Brandon, what license are you attributing the QtDialog code with?
Its BSD licensed, like ParaView is.
Clint
_______________________________________________
CMake mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Since Debian distributes binaries, which would be linked against GPL'ed Qt,
normally they wouldn't be able to distribute QtDialog with any license other
than the GPL. Luckily there is an exception in Qt's license that allows the GPL
version to link against BSD licensed code. So I think Debian will have no
problem distributing QtDialog, and I don't even see why you would need a
commercial license to work on it.
http://trolltech.com/products/qt/gplexception
--
Daniel
_______________________________________________
CMake mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
