Joost Verburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > Right, and it took two years or so to change that.
> >
> > I don't think you'd be much faster than Angus _even if
> > everybody agreed_.
>
> OK, so the only remaining possibility is to drop Win98/Me support.
In fact, it s
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 11:31:29PM +0200, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >Right, and it took two years or so to change that.
> >
> >I don't think you'd be much faster than Angus _even if
> >everybody agreed_.
>
> OK, so the only remaining possibility is to drop Win98/Me support.
M
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Right, and it took two years or so to change that.
I don't think you'd be much faster than Angus _even if
everybody agreed_.
OK, so the only remaining possibility is to drop Win98/Me support. I
will make that clear in the release notes of the new installer and add
an er
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 11:36:03PM +0200, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Woudn't it be an idea to mail all the developers
> (http://www.lyx.org/about/blanket-permission.php) and ask them whether
> they want to a make a special exception for linking with a commercial Qt?
>
> Previously there has been suc
Andre Poenitz wrote:
I seem to remember font metric problems.
Q../Free also doesn't support Windows XP styles, which makes the LyX GUI
look totally different compared to other Windows applications.
Joost
Andre Poenitz wrote:
The problem is not Qt in this case but the GPL. Assuming the installed
software is considered an integral part of the installer, the installer
would have to be released with a GPL-compatible license. I am not sure
how this could be achieved with Qt (commercial).
Right, I un
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 12:46:31PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> >>I don't know the details, but I think you need a commercial license if
> >>you develop with Qt3.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >In theory one could take the *nix GPL version and port it to Windows...
> >In practice th
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 12:51:59PM +0200, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >So this is arguably a breach of the GPL unless the installed
> >software could be considered as a non-integral part of the
> >installer.
> >
> >It's safer to make a Qt4 installer with the GPL'd Qt4/Win.
>
> I
Michael Gerz wrote:
Qtwin is a port of the *nix GPL version! And qtwin has proven to be
stable in the past. Look at LyX 1.3.7. Are there any serious complaints
about it (apart from linking time) that are caused by the underlying
qtwin library? So what's the problem?
The problem is that Qtwin
Andre Poenitz wrote:
I don't know the details, but I think you need a commercial license if
you develop with Qt3.
In theory one could take the *nix GPL version and port it to Windows...
In practice that won't work too well.
What are you guys talking about???
Qtwin is a port of the *n
Andre Poenitz wrote:
So this is arguably a breach of the GPL unless the installed
software could be considered as a non-integral part of the
installer.
It's safer to make a Qt4 installer with the GPL'd Qt4/Win.
I think the Qt license is designed to be compatible with this situation,
we should
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 10:24:25PM +0200, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >Released under the GPL under Windows, too?
>
> The Windows installer shows me only the GPL license.
So this is arguably a breach of the GPL unless the installed
software could be considered as a non-integral
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 10:20:33PM +0200, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >Could you scetch the problem?
>
> I don't know the details, but I think you need a commercial license if
> you develop with Qt3.
In theory one could take the *nix GPL version and port it to Windows...
In pra
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Released under the GPL under Windows, too?
The Windows installer shows me only the GPL license.
Joost
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 10:10:22PM +0200, Joost Verburg wrote:
> KDiff for example, is a GPL application that has a Windows release with
> the commercial Qt.
Released under the GPL under Windows, too?
Andre'
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Could you scetch the problem?
I don't know the details, but I think you need a commercial license if
you develop with Qt3. Creating an installer is also developing.
For normal Windows development Q../Free is fine. It would however be
great to have stable installers with
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 08:01:15PM +0200, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Angus Leeming wrote:
> >>If we know which version works we could make that one available for
> >>Win98/ME or try to find the issue by looking at the differences.
> >
> >TO be honest, no, I don't know. Try getting in touch with Luis;
Angus Leeming wrote:
LyX is licenced under the GPL. Linking to non-open source libraries is
restricted to "system" libraries as a special exception in the license, no? Qt
doesn't count as a system library.
So, no, that's not an option.
Have patience though. Qt4 *is* licenced under the GPL.
KD
Joost Verburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By the way, wouldn't it possible to find someone who is allowed to use
> the commercial Qt and can compile the installer for us?
LyX is licenced under the GPL. Linking to non-open source libraries is
restricted to "system" libraries as a special excepti
Angus Leeming wrote:
If we know which version works we could make that one available for
Win98/ME or try to find the issue by looking at the differences.
TO be honest, no, I don't know. Try getting in touch with Luis; he's certainly
used LyX on these OSes.
By the way, wouldn't it possible to
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 07:34:28PM +0200, Joost Verburg wrote:
> Angus Leeming wrote:
> >I guess that depends on what you mean by "supported". LyX on Win98/ME *has*
> >worked in the past thanks to the diligent efforts of Luis Rivera in
> >showing me
> >what needed to be donw. It *has* worked with
Joost Verburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you have any idea which Q../Free version works with Win98/ME? I
> downloaded and compiled a few older ones from CVS, but none of them
> seems to work without major issues.
> If we know which version works we could make that one available for
> Win9
Angus Leeming wrote:
I guess that depends on what you mean by "supported". LyX on Win98/ME *has*
worked in the past thanks to the diligent efforts of Luis Rivera in showing me
what needed to be donw. It *has* worked with Q../Free too, but since these guys
don't have access to such venerable machi
Joost Verburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> status.14x contains the following line:
> - Make LyX/Win work under windows 98.
> This is incorrect. Although LyX 1.4 itself supports Windows 98 and ME,
> Q../Free doesn't work on these versions (LyX will start but the UI is
> completely unusable). Th
24 matches
Mail list logo
