Re: QT2 ready for ITP?

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 08:00:59AM -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>> in the QPL.  What bugs me is the word "Unix".  Cygwin is not Unix
>> but it's... well, some sort of plug in to Windows, isn't it?  I
>> hate to say that.
>
>Again, I must point out that the core QT/Win32 API is a totally
>different codebase, at least in terms of hidden code (private).  This
>is why I think that clause is in there, to prevent people from
>thinking their QT/Win32 API falls under these terms.

Well, then, why all of the fuss in cygwin-patches where you were trying
to modify windows headers?  It doesn't seem like this is an entirely
"unix" port:

http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2002-q3/msg00175.html

So, while this may have been discussed before, I'm not sure we had
all of the details then.

>P.S.  - Many attempts [over 6+ months] have been made to contact
>Trolltech regarding this, yet no reply is forthcoming.  Therefore, we
>have satisfied the legal obligations, since it was their responsibility
>to pose any objections, which they have not.

Well, AFAIK, YANAL and IANAL, so I don't know how you can make definitive
legal pronouncements and I certainly am not going to accept your say so
on this.

cgf