Has somebody thought about the licensing hassles that the KDE version
creates?
It's been hashed out ad infinitum on the Debian lists, and, as
I remember it, if we want to link to QT (even Qt 2.0) in such a way
that is binary-redistributable, we need to:
a) Change to a new licence
or, more realistically,
b) Add a preamble to our licence giving a specific exemption allowing
QT linkage.
b) is, I believe, the RMS-approved way of dealing with QT.
However, I don't think we can make *any* licence change without getting the
permission of everyone who has contributed a substantial piece of code
to gnucash (or remove their code).
While I am all in favour of a KDE version of gnucash, if somebody
wants to code at it, it might be wise to consider the legal issues
*before* we get too far down the road to do anything about it.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober,
responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and
immature.
-- Tom Robbins
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
