On Sunday 13 February 2011 22:51:02 Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Caligo" <iteronve...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.1613.1297648969.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > > > Qt is not an open source project. Qt is Free software (GPL/LGPL) which > > is also dual licensed (commercial license) for development of > > proprietary and commercial software. Even if Microsoft was the > > copyright holder of Qt, nothing would stop anyone from modifying the > > source code and continuing its > > development. Besides, Qt is a source of income for Nokia because many > > large > > companies use it for their projects. > > [/me gets up on soapbox] > Distinctions between "open source" and "free software", and the assosiated > FSF/Stallman vs. OSI geek-off/slapping-fight, make me want to claw my ears > out and run screaming towards 100% closed/proprietary everything. > [/me steps back down]
LOL. On the whole, software is neither Free Software or Open Source. It may have a license that allows you to follow either of those philosophies, but Free Software and Open Source are really ideologies of the the people writing or using code, not the code itself. Most people just use the term open source, I believe, and most people don't care about the distinction. For some people, it seems to be a matter of life and death though. I suppose that you can just use the term FOSS if you want to be politically correct. - Jonathan M Davis
