On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 00:13 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: [snip:Blahblahblah, qt licensing]
> That's no fun. Remember, we're happy w/ people innovating and doing > closed source impls of their work if they choose. Well, you can't do a closed source impl of GTK (LGPL) either. And Open Motif is the same. SWT is copyleft and out of the question entirely. So where do you want to draw the proverbial line anyway? Write your own ASL-licensed widget toolkit? Reimplement the whole operating system? It doesn't stop people from doing closed source impls either. Although it requires a license. OTOH, the LGPL does add certain requirements to the code that links to it as well. Anyway, I frankly don't care. If Harmony doesn't want to use them, then don't. I'm more concerned with what I want, and what the people actually using Classpath want, not what this mailing list wants. > > Just to put things into perspective: You can also make the argument > > that > > a set of Windows or OS X peers wouldn't be distributable by > > Classpath or > > Harmony either, since they need a set of commercial libraries that > > require you to purchase Windows or OS X. > > Why? > This was in response to Rodrigo saying "Harmony can't use Qt". Let's forget for a second that Qt is available in FOSS versions, and just consider it as a proprietary library: Where's the fundamental difference between building peers on one proprietary library (Qt) and the proprietary libraries which happen to be distributed with proprietary OSes? I don't see any. /Sven
