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?