Giacomo Boffi <giacomo.boffi(a)polimi.it> writes:
> Per Abrahamsen writes:
> > Qt 2.0 (QPL) did change the political situation, as it is now under
> > a certified Open Source license. However, the legal situation is
> > exectly the same as before. The legal problem has never been with
> > the Qt license, but with the GPL. It still depends on whether the
> > law would consider Qt to fall under this clause:
> >
> > GPL> However, as a special exception, the source code distributed
> > GPL> need not include anything that is normally distributed (in
> > GPL> either source or binary form) with the major components
> > GPL> (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which
> > GPL> the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies
> > GPL> the executable.
> >
> > An alternative to betting on what the law would say, is to get a
> > "special exception" from the copyright holder.
>
> XEmacs can be linked with motif libraries (no opensource)
> is this relevant to clarify/obfuscate the current issue?
Stallman has granted a special exception for motif. I'm not even sure it
is that 'official'. Its more of a look-the-other-way. Plus there is
LessTif. Now that the harmony project is dead, there is no equivalent for
Qt.
-bp