From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Nov 30 20:43:21 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA03407
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 20:43:21 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from kai.communique.net (Kai.communique.net [204.27.67.90])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA03398
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 20:43:17 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from nectar@NECTAR.COM)
Received: (from smap@localhost)
	by kai.communique.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id WAA25653;
	Sun, 30 Nov 1997 22:48:38 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: kai.communique.net: smap set sender to <nectar@NECTAR.COM> using -f
Received: from localhost.communique.net(127.0.0.1) by kai.communique.net via smap (V2.0)
	id xma025649; Sun, 30 Nov 97 22:48:09 -0600
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 22:48:09 -0600 (CST)
From: Jacques Vidrine <nectar@NECTAR.COM>
X-Sender: nectar@kai.communique.net
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.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?) 
In-Reply-To: <19162.880950917@time.cdrom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971130224527.25445B-100000@kai.communique.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


Jordan,

I'm not objecting to the Qt copyright, and I'm not saying do not use Qt
and do not buy Qt ... I'm of the same mind as you regarding it.

... I _am_ saying that software with such licenses should not be used in
the implementation of FreeBSD itself or essential FreeBSD utilities, such
as sysinstall.  Why carry such luggage?

Jacques Vidrine <n@nectar.com>

On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:

> > 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
>