Linked by Andrew Youll on Sat 6th Aug 2005 08:30 UTC, submitted by tbutler
In a series of articles (part I, part II) during the month of July, OfB's Timothy R. Butler explained why he felt that KDE needed to move beyond the Qt toolkit it uses as a foundation. In that series, he asserted that the licensing of Qt is becoming a stumbling block to the desktop's adoption. Eric Laffoon, the project lead for KDE's Kdewebdev module, takes exception to Butler's arguments and makes the case for his view on the issue of Qt at OfB.biz.
Thread beginning with comment 14699
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
Your argument isn't with me, it's with the dictionary.
RAND isn't in the dictionary.
If you refuse to understand what RAND means, there is nothing I can do about that.
Where's the RAND clauses in Qt? Qt does not need to be released under RAND terms, and it isn't. You're off into the trees here, as well as the LSB:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_Non_Discriminatory_Lice...
It has absolutely bugger all to do with Qt. Zilch.
Now, if you made a coherent argument like that, we might have something of substance to argue about, rather than over the accepted definition of terms used by standards groups around the world.
Because what you're argument and your facts are total tosh - crystal clear.