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 CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
