[Accessibility] Re: Q

Nick Stoughton nick at usenix.org
Thu Aug 4 14:02:55 PDT 2005

On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 13:46, Olaf Schmidt wrote:
> Hi Peter!
> I very much agree with your statement that we should regard both Gtk and Qt as 
> standard tookits. Unfortunately the LSB's Selection Criteria do not allow for 
> this interpretation, because they say that the library must represent *the* 
> (not *a*) "best practice" in the development community for the problem it 
> solves. Standardising Gtk would therefore imply that the LSB considers Qt to 
> be technically less mature, and of course I object to this:
> http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/criteria/
There is certainly no intention that there must be only one best
practice ... and Qt certainly is not blocked on "best practice". It is
*only* blocked on license.

You should read http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/ideas/issues/libqt/ for
a more detailed discussion of the one and only issue LSB has with Qt,
the license criteria.

> I do not object to change LSB's criteria to adopt several toolkits as *a* 
> standard. I only object to changing the criteria in favour of one of the two 
> toolkits alone.
No change is required. The criteria absolutely allow multiple competing
libraries. It is not the LSB's job to mediate or to judge a winner in
such competition. Qt is blocked on license alone.
Nick Stoughton      USENIX/FSG Standards Liaison
nick at usenix.org     (510) 388 1413

More information about the Accessibility mailing list