When Dean and Evan say that they don't mind reviewing patches for Qt ports, what we are saying is that we don't mind having two UI versions of Chromium on linux?
How would this work in the long term? UI tests times 2? you get to choose what Chromium to install? Apologies if this was already discussed long time ago. If somebody asked me that they want to contribute a port of chrome on Windows UI using MFC, I would say no. I just don't see the cost/ benefit. Personally, Qt seems now the stronger toolkit, but I really don't have a clue about linux development. -cpu On Jan 14, 9:55 am, Evan Martin <e...@chromium.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:50 AM, andrewg <droi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 14, 11:44 am, Evan Martin <e...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> I'm no lawyer, but it appears there was already an exception list[1] > >> for the GPL-licensed code that would've covered us anyway? So I > >> believe this LGPL thing has no affect on us, except in its potential > >> broader implications for the space of other software in the future. > > >> I, too, would be happy to review patches for Qt support. > > >> [1]http://doc.trolltech.com/4.3/license-gpl-exceptions.html > > > I'm no lawyer either, but I am pretty sure the GPL would have required > > Chromium to be released under the GPL as well, instead of its BSD > > license (unless all of the contributors had a commercial license to > > Qt). > > Ah, my misreading -- that page doesn't apply to the "Open Source > Edition". I do remember reading about BSD-licensed software needing > to make licensing exceptions to link against Qt. > > (I apologize for my misinformation; I never looked into Qt too closely > exactly because of these licensing shenanigans.) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
