Re: QT2 ready for ITP?

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:51:08AM -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>
>--- Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:14:50AM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote:
>> >Any comments ?
>> 
>> Are there any licensing issues with qt?  Is the open source license
>> compliant
>> with cygwin's?
>> 
>> http://cygwin.com/licensing.html
>> 
>
>Ghostscript's license [The aladdin license (APFL?)] is much more
>restrictive than the QPL.

If we are not in compliance with Ghostscript then that is a problem.  It
is entirely separate from whether qt is compatible with the GPL +
Cygwin.  If you were aware of issues with ghostcript you should have
raised them.

>Besides when you compile QT, you'll get a screen which shows how the
>QPL is mutually inclusive of the GPL.

So, if I show you a screen which says it's exclusive of the GPL, you'll
just give up?

Since I don't accept the word of every person with a web site out there
who thinks they are compliant with the GPL, I don't see why I should accept
the words of a screen.  Is there an independent corroboration of this anywhere?

cgf