Re: Qt Xemacs ??
Rodolfo Conde Martinez <rcm(a)gmx.co.uk> writes:
On Saturday 27 April 2002 02:40, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> 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. :-)