[lsb-discuss] Re: [lsb-futures] Qt libs ... included in the kernel 2.6 ... Why still blocked?
Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando
gorlando at futuretg.com
Thu Nov 6 13:39:53 PST 2003
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
>
>
>
More information about the lsb-discuss
mailing list