On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:26:03AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > And it provides another example of the GPL failing to meet the requirements of > evolving software applications -- more grist for those critical of open source.
Yes, the GPL has problems. The GPL is not an ideal license in many ways. There is no such ideal license. > The problem here is not with the GPL, but with the Trolltech business model and > licensing practices, which puts open source applications under the GPL in this > untenable position if developers wish to release Windows versions. Rubbish. Troll Tech's business model is admirable. They rock in this respect. > Almost two years ago (?) I raised questions on this list (with strident > language that I later came to regret; my apologies) about all the time, effort > and (IMHO) diversion from potential enhancements, involved in making LyX > "toolkit independent". It was nonsense then, it's nonsense now. History shows that you've made several positive contributions to LyX, this was not one of them. I said it then, I'll say it again. Your comments were fundamentally misplaced. In particular, somebody can still contribute a Win32 frontend that uses the platform-provided API without license problems *whatsoever*. > What will happen, in reality, is that a handful of users will build linked > binaries and distribute them to others. Some of this may fall within the They are breaking the license. Despite having personally put forth the majority of the work for the Qt port, and being happy to adjust the license, I must accept that other contributors feel differently. This I am happy with. People are very much entitled to see their code used as they see fit. At the very least, Andre, who is undoubtedly extremely important, is unhappy with it. So fine, it's not going to happen. regards john
