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

[Doug Beattie]

I've Bcc'd someone from TrollTech to see if they can help explain this to
Dr. Giovanne A. Orlando so he can believe what is being said to him.

I don't think he sees the point that even though the kernel folks can
legally use, without cost, the particular code they do, that TrollTech
does not allow commerical use of their code without royalty fees being
paid to them.

If TrollTech does not allow for free and un-incumbered use of their
libraries, even by commercial packages, then the LSB cannot allow
there libraries to go into the specification even though many people
are desireous to have it included.

Doug

On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:02:03PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> 
> "Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando" writes...
> 
> >     It is clear that the actual clausole that block Qt:
> >    
> >         http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/candidates/Qt/index.html#demand
> > 
> >     have no sense anymore.
> 
> Are we reading the same web page? On that page, Qt is listed as meeting
> ("Yes") the demand criteria. We've had lots of people asking for it.
> The criteria that it's blocked on is License. Ted did a good job
> of describing why in another message.
> 
> >     Basically the file: qconf.cc have the same weight that any Linux 
> > driver, in the kernel hierarchy ... I think.
> 
> The LSB criteria has nothing to do with the Linux kernel, and we try
> not to specify any kernel interfaces at all. I don't understand the
> relevance of your point. Can you clarify?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
> Matt Taggart        Linux and Open Source Lab
> taggart at fc.hp.com   Hewlett-Packard
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lsb-futures mailing list
> lsb-futures at freestandards.org
> http://freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-futures

-- 
Doug Beattie
dbb at linkexplorer.com