Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th May 2006 19:54 UTC
Permalink for comment 121595
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
Actually, you can also use Qt under the QPL
So that's wrong too
[/i]
Which includes another clause in it - ultimately, I think the decision by Mozilla developers came down to technical and pragmatic reasons rather than it being an issue of licences; if they really wanted to use Qt, there was nothing stopping them from paying for a special licence from Trolltech as to allow them to use it - think about it; Mozilla, small company called Trolltech; software title with a high profile, I don't know about you, but it would have been cheap publicity for their product.
The source code to Mozilla may be released under the GPL, but official binary builds from Mozilla.org are not. Read the EULA that accompanies it
Who said anything about the EULA? we're talking about source code, not final product.