Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 20:35:17 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Jacques Vidrine <nectar@NECTAR.COM> Cc: Alex <garbanzo@hooked.net>, "hackers@freebsd.org" <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Out of Box experience (Was: Re: How is selection made of what goes into CDrom?) Message-ID: <19162.880950917@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 30 Nov 1997 21:31:01 CST." <Pine.BSF.3.96.971130212849.25349B-100000@kai.communique.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Only KDE depends upon Qt, which doesn't have an appropriate software > license. Oh, I dunno about this. I think that people should be willing to be just a bit more flexible where these sorts of "use it for something free, get it free - use it for something commercial, pay some money" licenses are concerned since it takes a high degree of flexibility for any company to even *think* about doing something like this. It's also fairly clear that getting other companies to adopt similarly free-software friendly licenses like this, giving access to their full source code on the net (!) as TrollTech does, won't be made any easier if the free software people themselves react negatively to the idea and adopt a strict no-compromise policy. If anything is going to result in any real changes in this industry, it's going to be a willingness to compromise on *both* sides of the licensing issue so that neither "side" feels that the other is trying to force their ideologies on it at gunpoint. I like the Qt copyright and wish Trolltech every degree of success with it. I'd like to see a lot more of that kind of thing in the industry, frankly. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19162.880950917>