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

Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando gorlando at futuretg.com
Fri Nov 7 08:02:59 PST 2003


Doug Beattie wrote:

>I've Bcc'd someone from TrollTech to see if they can help explain this to
>Dr. Giovanni 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.
>
This is an important point I miss. Thanks.

>
>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.
>
Yes. This is the real point.

Well, I hope they can see this matter. However, no one can said another 
'please gift' your excellent job, because
fundamental for me.

If someone ask me my 7 years FTLinuxCourse, I can replay that I can 
offers an obsolete version, or just that is copyright, or pay if you 
want. No people go to Universities to expecting to works for free or
open business to give away their projects and best ideas. Probably money 
back, but probably not.

Thanks,
Giovanni

>
>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
>>    
>>
>
>  
>






More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list