Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:17:43PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote: >> "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the >> > right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license? > >> To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-) >> The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for >> xforms. The question is, who should do this? Matthias Ettrich? >> Anyway, it's a bit of a dead end, since Trolltech won't be releasing any >> new non-commercial Qt libs. On the other hand, it will probably work for >> a while. Qt3 is not that different from Qt2. > > No, the current lyx license just plain isn't correct (as a legal issue). > I wrote the prior qualifications a few years ago, but John replaced that > with what it says now. The problem is that that's just not what the law > did on the initial release. > > Regardless of what the current "license" says, xforms does not have a > special status; the entire clause of the putative GPL license was put > aside when Matthias released the code, saying it was GPL but inviting > people to redistribute. *Any* library can be used in the same manner > as xforms, and we are powerless to object or assert that clause of the > GPL. > > But what do I know; I'm just a lawyer who contributed time to get this > right only to see it wiped aside without consulting me. > > hawk, esq.
Dear, Hawk $ cvs annotate COPYING tells me that there have been only three changes to COPYING: 27-Sep-99 Lars 01-Aug-01 JMarc 06-Feb-03 myself I take it that you are talking about a separate file? Could you perhaps post the legally binding Licence to the list again because I for one would just like things done right. -- Angus
