Justin Vallon wrote: > > > > We already allow XEmacs to link against vendor provided non-free > > > > libraries. Motif, for instance. What's the difference? > > > > > > Motif is an RMS sanctioned "system library". I have nothing against > > > linking with QT. I am simply not prepared to take any heat from the > > > FSF for something simple as looks. > > > > Oh, right, this matters for the binary kits. For source > > distributions, we can use any library. > > I don't see any difference. Aren't the binary kits dynamically linked > against Motif, anyway. Are you allowed to ship archive linked Motif > applications? See later. > As for non-distribution of third-party libraries, what about requiring > dynamic linking? Surely there is nothing anybody could say that would > prevent a dynamically linked Qt executable from being freely > distributed, no? Requiring dynamic linking doesn't help. From section 3 of the GPL: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. The relevant bit being 'plus any associated interface definition files'. I guess that if someone were to produce GPL'd Qt-compatible header files, than that might solve the problem.