On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, John Levon wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 12:45:15AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > > > To limit it to XForms is perhaps not good, we should add a clause for > > QT2 as well. > > Qt2 is GPL/QPL dual licensed.
Wasn't the point of the GNU suggested wording to be a model of how to allow linking to Qt2 on Windows? On Unix there is no problem with either GPL or QPL as I understand it. So we would still need to mention Qt2. What happens to a port to MFC? Aqua? or some other toolkit which is proprietory and closed source? We need to keep revising our license clarification. Why not just stick with a general statement that says we can link to whatever closed system libraries we need to -- native Windows port will need native graphics and IO and whatever else libs after all. Allan. (ARRae) Don't you just love these license debates?
