On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@au-k...>wrote:

>
>
> http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license-gpl-exceptions.html
>
> and now I see why nokia is being mentioned ;-)
>
> So, as JTD has said - the whole thing is rubbish meant to deceive a
> gullible
> public by misusing the term GPL.


Sorry, this is pure FUD!

QT *OWNS* the code. *YOU* have the freedom to use it under GPL,
as allowed by QT. *YOU* also have the freedom to NOT use it.
Where's the misuse of GPL!? You wish to fork it, and call it "NotQT" -
and release it again under GPL, please go ahead and do it.
It won't make you a misuser!

And what else - even if QT did not use GPL - for the simple fact that
they give you the source code with every commercial license too, it's
complying with the basic philosophy RMS expounds about freedom -
the end user has the source and isn't left stranded with a welded bonnet!

I'm sorry about having to stretch this thread so much - but misinformation
is
dangerous and hence this issue needs to be settled.

--
jaju

PS: *YOU* is not specifically _you_ but the user.
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers