On Thursday 18 September 2008 11:05 am, Arnold Krille wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 18. September 2008 schrieb James Stone: > > What I don't quite understand is that Qt has a free/commercial > > separate licensing, but no-one has the same kind of problem with qt > > that they have with LS? Would someone care to explain? > > No one??? You surely are funny! What do you think why gnome was founded??? > > Not because Qt wasn't free, but because Qt wasn't free enough. Kind of like > the same as with LS/Eisenkraut/etc. not being free enough. You are right in that Qt wasn't free enough (in the opinion of, for example, Richard Stallman, and I agreed (FWIW ;-)), but dual licensing was not the issue at that time. I can't recall the issue exactly, but, in fact, dual licensing was a solution to the issue--Qt was not free at the time, by adopting the GPL (and dual licensing to protect their commercial interests), Qt became acceptable to people like Richard Stallman. (I'm not 100% sure Richard Stallman has ever said that, or maybe more to the point, iirc, I think he may have some bias towards Gnome that was not overcome when Qt adopted the GPL.) Randy Kramer -- I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I created a video instead.--with apologies to Cicero, et.al. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
