David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Considering a GPL-compatible v2 of the QPL wasn't good enough. Eh? Who would not have been satisfied with a genuinely GPL-compatible QPL? -- __ \/ o\ Employ me! Cryptology, security, Perl, Linux, TCP/IP, and smarts. /\__/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cluefactory.org.uk/paul/cv/
- Qt and the GPL David Johnson
- Re: Qt and the GPL kmself
- Re: Qt and the GPL David Johnson
- Re: Qt and the GPL kmself
- RE: Qt and the GPL Nelson Rush
- RE: Qt and the GPL David Johnson
- RE: Qt and the GPL Paul Crowley
- RE: Qt and the GPL Nelson Rush
- RE: Qt and the GPL David Johnson
- Re: Qt and the GPL kmself
- Re: Qt and the GPL kmself
- Re: Qt and the GPL David Johnson
- Re: Qt and the GPL kmself
- RE: Qt and the GPL Lou Grinzo
- Re: Qt and the GPL kmself
- QT and the GPL Patrick BURNAND
- Re: Qt and the GPL Brian Behlendorf