Hans Reiser wrote:
> No, it makes it GPL'd with an additional license available if you don't like
> GPL
> and are willing to pay. It is a GPL restriction that one cannot integrate GPL
> software into non-GPL'd software.
Why not rewrite the statement to be written as a notice of facts rather
tha
Hans Reiser wrote:
> No, it makes it GPL'd with an additional license available if you don't like GPL
> and are willing to pay. It is a GPL restriction that one cannot integrate GPL
> software into non-GPL'd software.
Why not rewrite the statement to be written as a notice of facts rather
than
Thibaut Cousin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> As far as I cant tell this isn't a legal issue. If QT is
> >> distributed as part of a (Linux) distribution then the GPL grants
> >> an exception to allow redistribution of GPLed code linked with QT.
> >> (See the special exception part of clause 3 of
Thibaut Cousin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I found something that may help to understand the problem between
>Debian and KDE in the archives of KDE's mailing lists. Strangely they
>don't see the problem in the same way.
Amazing ;)
>If this mailing list is not the proper place for posting that,
Thibaut Cousin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> As far as I cant tell this isn't a legal issue. If QT is
> >> distributed as part of a (Linux) distribution then the GPL grants
> >> an exception to allow redistribution of GPLed code linked with QT.
> >> (See the special exception part of clause 3 of
Thibaut Cousin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I found something that may help to understand the problem between
>Debian and KDE in the archives of KDE's mailing lists. Strangely they
>don't see the problem in the same way.
Amazing ;)
>If this mailing list is not the proper place for posting that,
6 matches
Mail list logo
