Re: Qt Xemacs ??

>>>>> "Rodolfo" == Rodolfo Conde Martinez <rcm(a)gmx.co.uk&gt; writes: Rodolfo> Still i would be interested in a Qt-port, Qt is GPL'ed Rodolfo> under linux and other unix systems, quite frankly i wasnt Rodolfo> thinking about windows in all of this, i think there are Rodolfo> free versions of QT for windows if you make free Rodolfo> software, but still the disadvantage is that those Qt Rodolfo> versions arent the last one, thats bad :(.....but i still Rodolfo> say: why not a unix-Qt port of xemacs ?? Because rms will very likely make us take all the Windows code out. If you want to do a unix-Qt port, ask rms what needs to be done. rms has been quite plain that linking with QPL code (or worse, I'm not sure what the status is, but I know that within the last 12-18 months I saw a reference the Qt not being within spitting distance of free on Windows) is not permitted.

No, Qt does not qualify for the "motif exemption", that line has been tried and rms said "don't even think about it. No."

So in order to redistribute this code, my reading is that you will have to remove all the Windows code first. (Don't tell richard I said that, and he may come up with a less painful way for you to do the job.) You show me that Qt is GPL on Windows, make sure that XEmacs cannot link with non-GPLed Qt on any platform, and/or get an OK from rms _first_, and I'll consider managing the integration. You'll have to find somebody else to do the scutwork if you submit patches without rms's name on the dotted line. Life is too short to have a fight with rms over code I don't really care about.