[lsb-futures] Re: [lsb-discuss] Qt libs ... included in the kernel 2.6 ... Why still blocked?
tytso at mit.edu
Fri Nov 7 13:57:55 PST 2003
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 04:55:09PM +0100, Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
> I understand now. So, you said, Trolltech must offer the library in a way
> such that people may release free or not-free software without to pay them.
> If this is the point it is interesting. So, you want that their their
> job, just for free ...
No, Trolltech doesn't *have* to do anything. It's their software, and
they can do whatever they want with it. However, given that there
*are* alternatives which are freely available for use by commercial
applications, such as the GTK toolkit, why should the LSB spend
volunteer effort to trying to standardizing API's and ABI's just to
line the pockets of Trolltech?
If Trolltech were to provide the funding and engineering effort to
standardize the API's and ABI's for the Qt library, and there is a
zero-cost alternative for commercial providers (i.e., GTK) also
specified for the LSB, I personally would not have an objection with
including the Qt in the LSB. Of course, I don't speak for the entire
LSB work group (or the entire Free Standards Group board that would
have to vote to publish a standard that represented such a change
policy). But there is a process within the LSB and the FSG for making
such a decision, should Trolltech choose to step forward.
More information about the lsb-discuss