Re: QT2 ready for ITP?

[Nicholas Wourms <nwourms at yahoo dot com>]

--- Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 08:00:59AM -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> >> in the QPL.  What bugs me is the word "Unix".  Cygwin is not
> Unix
> >> but it's... well, some sort of plug in to Windows, isn't it?  I
> >> hate to say that.
> >
> >Again, I must point out that the core QT/Win32 API is a totally
> >different codebase, at least in terms of hidden code (private). 
> This
> >is why I think that clause is in there, to prevent people from
> >thinking their QT/Win32 API falls under these terms.
> 
> Well, then, why all of the fuss in cygwin-patches where you were
> trying
> to modify windows headers?  It doesn't seem like this is an
> entirely
> "unix" port:
> 
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2002-q3/msg00175.html
> 
> So, while this may have been discussed before, I'm not sure we had
> all of the details then.

Well actually, it would be totally Win32 header free, if it weren't
for the fact that Chris January added an original patch to better
display current drives in konqueror.  As for the dns stuff, that was
already present in the Unix/X11 version, which is covered by the
QPL/GPL.
 
> >P.S.  - Many attempts [over 6+ months] have been made to contact
> >Trolltech regarding this, yet no reply is forthcoming.  Therefore,
> we
> >have satisfied the legal obligations, since it was their
> responsibility
> >to pose any objections, which they have not.
> 
> Well, AFAIK, YANAL and IANAL, so I don't know how you can make

Can we please cut out the acronyms?  We should be respectful of Ralf
and others for whom English is a second[or third, etc.] language.

> definitive
> legal pronouncements and I certainly am not going to accept your
> say so
> on this.

Fine, that is your perogative.  I have no doubt that RedHat has a
crackshot legal dept., so why not wing the QT/X11 QPL their way and
see what they have to say?  I'm sure they would be in the position to
provide a definitive, authoritative answer to your question.

I do understand your concerns, and believe me when I say that the
last thing I would want is for RedHat to be sued [since my portfolio
consists of a moderate amount of RedHat shares].  So, I will do my
best to work with you to resolve this issue.  Otherwise, I guess qt
will never be a part of Cygwin.

Cheers,


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com