On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Herbert Xu wrote: > This is not the point. They can release it under any > license as long as they allow other people to release > modified versions, even if it has to be under a > different name. This is so that the applications > won't get caught when Troll stops releasing free Qt > versions. > > Think of what would happen if you weren't allowed to > release modified versions of X and that company which > has taken over X decided to make X non-free.
Well, you see, once the source code has been released, it is somewhat like Pandora's box. Programs relying on the old Qt will function as always. Free programs relying on the new, unreleased, pay-for-it Qt... well, there just won't be many of those around. As for not being able modify Qt, not really. Qt supports inheritance, so can be modified at a higher abstraction. Your argument is based on FUD. Meanwhile the freeware community diddles around with various uncompleted toolkits. <flame> Personally, I expected much more from the X development model than has appeared. The X world seems to have grasped a commercial library, Motif. Where is the plethora of excellent concepts and toolkits? Seems the big commercial OSes get those (MacOS, Windows, OS/2 -- not neglecting NeXT, it just didn't get to the big status). So, what went wrong? </flame> I don't support Qt as much as I support a free toolkit that is being developed on a continual basis. It would not be a first to put a wrapper around Qt calls, if you so desired, either. -- William Burrow -- Fredericton Area Network, New Brunswick, Canada Copyright 1996 William Burrow This line left intentionally blank. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
