I think we already have the license issues covered. Lyx is Quasi-GPL,
not GPL. The actions taken in releasing and inviting to distribute
binaries while having the xforms dependencies was inconsistent with the
GPL wording, thus the actions governed. When I saw the kde/gnu/debian
religious wars, I brought this up, pointed out how the law worked, and
wrote the license clarification that now ships.
As written, it is clauses of the GPL that are rejected, so the
rejection would carry forward to other libraries.
Its those initial actions, predating what I wrote, that determine what
we can and cannot do, and what the license is. It might be arguaable
that only xforms gets the exemption; I'll mull this over. My initial
reaction, though, is that the offending GPL clauses are inert in their
entirety--otherwise, the project would be locked into a specific
version of xforms rather than its updates, which is a nonsensical
result. Since updated versions of xforms may be used, I'd be inclined
to believe that any substitute to xforms may also be used (again, I'll
mull this over a bit.).
As a practical note, I think it would be *very* difficult to find
anyone who would have the legal standing to object to the use of qt . .
.
hawk
--
Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of X and postings
Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
