[Accessibility] Re: Q

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Tuesday 09 August 2005 07:52, George Kraft wrote:
> There is nothing preventing the maintainers (or evangelists) of those
> ABIs from (1) stabilizing/versioning their ABIs, (2) completely
> specifying their ABIs, (3) writing comformance tests for their ABIs,
> then (4) presenting their bundle (implementation, specs, tests) to the
> LSB for inclusion.  The LSB has given the boilerplate template.  It
> couldn't be any easier to follow...

i'm sorry, but every thing i've read about Qt not being acceptable to the LSB 
group to date has been about licensing. if the licensing were an issue that 
the LSB left pragmatically to the software developers while serving as a 
(much needed, btw) center of documentation and conformance for these ABIs, 
then i would certainly see to it that the above items (of which Qt already 
meets at least a few of) got taken care of post haste.

my concern is that all that work would get done and the LSB would simply toe 
the "license unacceptable" party line and it will have been a waste of time 
and effort on my part.

perhaps i'm missing something here and it really is just the above 4 points 
you list that need addressing, and the LSB is now willing to take in the Qt 
library given it meets the pragmatic conformance requirements despite it 
being GPL'd rather than LGPL'd/BSD'd/MIT'd/Apache'd/etc. is this so?

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/accessibility/attachments/20050809/bab15604/attachment.pgp