[lsb-discuss] Re: [lsb-futures] Qt libs ... included in the kernel 2.6 ... Why still blocked?

[Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando]

Theodore Ts'o wrote:

>On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:35:05PM +0100, Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi Friends,
>>
>>   In the past, I was a knight defending the Qt insertion in the LSB 
>>Specific.
>>
>>   Actually state is "Blocked", in the futures.
>>  
>>       http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/candidates/index.html
>>
>>   Now, I download some days ago, the kernel 2.6-test9 and running 
>>"make xconfig" I found
>>a wonderfull evolution, not more based on Tcl/Tk but on Qt ... Yes, on Qt.
>>
>>   Now, that Qt is included in the Linux Kernel ... Are there some 
>>possibilities that become
>>"Active" and therefore UN-Blocked!
>>    
>>
>
>Qt is still blocked on the license.  The basic theory is that if there
>are twenty libraries with Qt-like licenses, it would be extremely
>annoying and inhibiting for ISV's to have to pay twenty different
>companies just to write commercial applications for Linux.  Hence the
>requirement that libraries mandated for use by Linux Standard Base be
>under a license which allows cost-free usage by commercial ISV's.
>(i.e., LGPL or BSD style licensed).  
>
>It's nothing specific against Qt.  libreadline and other GPL'ed
>licensed libraries aren't included either, for similar reasons.
>
Dear Matt and Ted,

    It is clear that the actual clausole that block Qt:
   
        http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/candidates/Qt/index.html#demand

    have no sense anymore.

    Basically the file: qconf.cc have the same weight that any Linux 
driver, in the kernel hierarchy ... I think.

    Keep me posted if you changes the actual clausole.

Thanks,
Giovanni

>
>						- Ted
>
>_______________________________________________
>lsb-futures mailing list
>lsb-futures at freestandards.org
>http://freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-futures
>
>  
>