On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 04:32:00PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Sven Luther: > > > On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 04:16:41PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Sven Luther: > >> > >> > Still, it only applies to the not linked with GPLed Qt case, so should be > >> > ignorable for us, right ? > >> > >> Only you if you interpret "eSvn License for Unix platforms" as a mere > >> placeholder (like "Licensing Option 2"). It's not clear if Debian is > >> a Unix platform. > > > > We don't care about that, the licence says : > > > > if you are linking with the GPLed version of Qt, then the code is under > > the > > GPL. > > > > So, we can ignore all this non-GPLed QT and unix-plateform mess, can't we ? > > I'd rather see a clarification from upstream. If they intent to > prevent a GPLed Windows port, it's non-free. If they just want to > make sure that people may distribute Windows binaries, it's probably okay.
Well, the only way giving this licencing would be the absense of a GPLed port of Qt to windows, wouldn't it ? This hardly makes eSvn non-free, not anymore than our dual-licenced Qt does. Friendly, Sven Luther
