18 Sep
2008
18 Sep
'08
2:15 p.m.
On Thursday 18 September 2008 11:05 am, Arnold Krille wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 18. September 2008 schrieb James
Stone:
founded???
What I don't quite understand is that Qt has
a free/commercial
separate licensing, but no-one has the same kind of problem with qt
that they have with LS? Would someone care to explain?
No one??? You surely are funny! What do you think why gnome was
Not because Qt wasn't free, but because Qt wasn't free enough. Kind of
like
the same as with LS/Eisenkraut/etc. not being free
enough.
You are right in that Qt wasn't free enough (in the opinion of, for
example, Richard Stallman, and I agreed (FWIW ;-)), but dual licensing
was not the issue at that time.
I can't recall the issue exactly, but, in fact, dual licensing was a
solution to the issue--Qt was not free at the time, by adopting the GPL
(and dual licensing to protect their commercial interests), Qt became
acceptable to people like Richard Stallman. (I'm not 100% sure Richard
Stallman has ever said that, or maybe more to the point, iirc, I think
he may have some bias towards Gnome that was not overcome when Qt
adopted the GPL.)
Randy Kramer
--
I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I created a video
instead.--with apologies to Cicero, et.al.