I remember reading an editorial/article (about 2 years) on creating a QT
clone (this was before the QPL appeared and maybe pre-harmony).
If I recall correctly, it stated that anybody creating a QT clone would need
to ensure they weren't directly influenced by the QT code (ie you couldn't
look at the QT code to see how troll tech did it) - in order to avoid any
legal problems. I think it actually recommended having people code in a
completely 'clean' environment - no qt code... only an class
interface/process specification.
What's the current state of things under the QPL? If I were to code harmony
classes, would having QT source on my machine be grounds for potential legal
problems?
regards,
Michael
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam J. Richter [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 9 April 2000 5:22
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [freeqt] Harmony classes to implement
>
> Back in February, Dmitri Koulakov produced a list of Qt-2.1.0
> classes not yet implemented in Harmony. I think it might
> be useful for me to post it here, in case anyone is curious.
> There are 121 unimplemented classes in all. The list is
> divided roughly in the order which I think would produce useful
> results most quickly: the classes need to build kdelibs, then
> KDE base, then koffice, then the rest.
>
> More than a year ago, 414 people "signed" a petition to
> Troll Technologies asking them to release Qt under GPL compatible
> copying conditions. Just think: if a third of those people would
> implement just one class, that would take care of them all.
>
> Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 4880 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite
> 104
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / San Jose, California
> 95129-1034
> +1 408 261-6630 | g g d r a s i l United States of America
> fax +1 408 261-6631 "Free Software For The Rest Of Us."
>
>
