On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 08:05, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Congratulations on making the front page of Slashdot. > > It seems that you're referring to > <http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/02/10/12/1926242.shtml?tid=106> > but I don't see any comments about Qt licensing there.
The Slashdot article links to a kernel mailing list thread. In the thread, several people (including Linus) mention lkc's use of Qt as a "political problem" that hampers lkc's suitability for inclusion in the kernel. > > Since Debian was one of the prime movers behind the anti-Qt movement > > in the past, I feel that we should respond to this. > > What? If there ever was a "anti-Qt movement", Debian has certainly not > been a "prime mover" behind it. Debian has simply refrained from > distributing some programs which had code covered by the GPL yet > linked to Qt at a time where distributing such programs would have > been illegal. That's not being "anti-Qt" in any way, it's just abiding > to the license terms of the involved code. Well, perhaps "anti-Qt" was a poor choice of words. My point was that Debian was one of the loudest objectors to the former situation with Qt and GPLed code, and that some of the perception of Qt as "politically controversial" comes from that debate. Now that the situation is resolved, it is our responsibility (IMHO) to dispel that perception.
