Re: Qt Xemacs ??

Rodolfo Conde Martinez <rcm(a)gmx.co.uk&gt; writes: > On Saturday 27 April 2002 02:40, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org&gt; writes: >> > >> You'll have to be a little bit careful with this one; according >> > >> to the information about GTK XEmacs, QPL'd software can't be >> > >> linked with GPL'd software without the consent of *all* of the >> > >> copyright holders (at least, that's RMS' stance). >> > >> > Simon> Sorry, I don't believe this is correct, QT is licensed >> > Simon> under GPL and is free software. It is not GNU software >> > Simon> though. RMS doesn't seem to think that a QT port of, e.g., >> > Simon> emacs would worthwile though. >> > >> > Windows, Windows, Windows, Windows. AFAIK Qt is still QPL on Windows. >> >> Oops, I didn't know that. That's bad, really. > > Still i would be interested in a Qt-port, Qt is GPL'ed under > linux and other unix systems, quite frankly i wasnt thinking about > windows in all of this, i think there are free versions of QT for > windows if you make free software, but still the disadvantage is > that those Qt versions arent the last one, thats bad :(.....but i > still say: why not a unix-Qt port of xemacs ?? I agree. XEmacs already supports lots of libraries not present under Windows. A QT XEmacs would add value for unix users. Compare with Motif support (even though I guess Motif support in XEmacs is broken(?)). Now, writing requests for code instead of code, is a bit difference though. :-)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8zAjax2Sktruwba0RAmCRAJ9v+ZpiPEaQKmhSKkyn3zr6FRO79gCgu9iL ValEFhwQttKnL3AnCkzAVvc= =VBvy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----