On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:17:43PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote: > "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the > > right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?
> To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-) > The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for > xforms. The question is, who should do this? Matthias Ettrich? > Anyway, it's a bit of a dead end, since Trolltech won't be releasing any new > non-commercial Qt libs. On the other hand, it will probably work for a > while. Qt3 is not that different from Qt2. No, the current lyx license just plain isn't correct (as a legal issue). I wrote the prior qualifications a few years ago, but John replaced that with what it says now. The problem is that that's just not what the law did on the initial release. Regardless of what the current "license" says, xforms does not have a special status; the entire clause of the putative GPL license was put aside when Matthias released the code, saying it was GPL but inviting people to redistribute. *Any* library can be used in the same manner as xforms, and we are powerless to object or assert that clause of the GPL. But what do I know; I'm just a lawyer who contributed time to get this right only to see it wiped aside without consulting me. hawk, esq.
