Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> writes: > In article <8763acztoq....@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> > wrote: >> > >> > The KDE developers were operating in good faith when they dynamically >> > linked to non-GPL Qt. This is allowed under GPLv2, because Qt was >> > something normally distributed with the components of the operating >> > system on which KDE ran. >> > >> > But the FSF threw a fit over this, until the makers of Qt changed the >> > license. >> >> Huh? Qt was not merely licensed "non-GPL" but non-free. KDE relied on > > It was not non-free.
The license, among other things, prohibited porting to Windows. There were quite a number of terms that put Trolltech into a special position with regard to changes and redistribution. The license went through several iterations. I think there was a final time span of about a year where it was indeed meeting the criteria for free software, but was still GPL-incompatible. And thus not worthwhile for GNU. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
