On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 21:40, Shlomi Fish wrote: > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Micha Feigin wrote: > > > On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 11:03, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > > > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Shlomi Fish wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Ely Levy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Diego Iastrubni wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Here is my opinion: any one of this 3sounds cool. I put here only the > > > > > > downsides of each approach. > > > > > > > > > > > > gtk: > > > > > > * not object oriented (looks un-natural to build gui's in no oop language) > > > > > > * looks funkey on win32 > > > > > > > > > > > > qt: > > > > > > * not free inwin32 > > > > > Actually it is now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Free as in speech? I don't think so. Care to enlighten us? > > > > > For the record, I was referring to the Win32 version, not the UNIX/X11 > one. > > > > Isn't it dual licensed as GPL/QPL?Doesn't GPL mean free as in > > > speech? > > > > > > > Don't know QPL and correct me if I am wrong, but I thinkthat programs > > that include GPL code have to be released under GPL license > > Correct, any inclusive work of GPL code makes the entire file GPLed. > > > in which > > case you can only use qt under windows for open source software as a > > free toolkit (has its points I admit. If you are going to earn money for > > you program, you might aswell pay for the usage of the toolkit). > > I don't understand what you mean exactly. Care to explain? >
I mean that if you write free software for the comunity then you should have to pay for the toolkits you are using as you are not making any money of it. If you set up a company to write commercial software which you are going to make money selling then you might as well pay for the external code you are using. Whoever wrote the libraries has a right to make a living too and if this money supports further developement of the code then the whole comunity benefits in the end. I do guess that this should be looked at, at a case by case basis and don't start a flame war over this as this statement probably should be writen in more carefull wording first ;-) > > Although I believe that if you use dynamic linking you can still mix GPL > > and closed source (as you are not actually including the source in you > > program). > > Actually, the GPL is not entirely clear about it. But according to the > FSF-advocated interpretation a closed source program cannot link against a > GPL library. (statically or dynamically) > > > Thats whats supposed to enable distributing closed source > > kernel modules. > > Actually, that is Linus Torvalds' interpretation of the GPL that allows > it. > > Regards, > > Shlomi Fish > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Shlomi Fish > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ely > > > > > > behdad > > > > > > ================================================================= > > > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > > > the word "unsubscribe"in the message body, e.g., run the command > > > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > > Micha Feigin > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > ================================================================= > > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command > > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/ > > Writing a BitKeeper replacement is probably easier at this point than getting > its license changed. > > Matt Mackall on OFTC.net #offtopic. ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
