- From: jg pa dec com (Jim Gettys)
- To: Xavier Bestel <n0made free fr>
- Cc: Alan Cox <alan lxorguk ukuu org uk>, Linas Vepstas <linas linas org>, Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>, Richard Stallman <rms gnu org>, on_the_net clear net nz, foundation-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Questions
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:33:56 -0800 (PST)
Definately not: but I believe Gnome encompasses a much larger community,
that is more than just GPL/LGPL'ed code: for example, code I write
will, as it has for 15 years, be licensed via the X Copyright (GPL/LGPL
compatible, as it has always been). The day it isn't fully open,
is the day I (and I believe most others) go elsewhere.
In this sense, I believe Gnome is an open source project, not
strictly a GNU project.
> Sender: foundation-list-admin gnome org
> From: Xavier Bestel <n0made free fr>
> Date: 27 Nov 2001 11:39:20 +0100
> To: Alan Cox <alan lxorguk ukuu org uk>
> Cc: Linas Vepstas <linas linas org>, Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>,
> Richard Stallman <rms gnu org>, on_the_net clear net nz,
> foundation-list gnome org
> Subject: Re: Questions
> le mar 27-11-2001 à 11:08, Alan Cox a écrit :
> > > May I add that, without RMS 'lauching' the GNOME project and harassing
> > > TrollTech, Qt would probably never have been licenced under the GPL ?
> > Had the license not changed Qt would have been replaced by Harmony.
> Do you think KDE people were really concerned with the non-free aspect
> of Qt ? I'm not so sure, but I may be wrong. OTOH I wouldn't like GNOME
> people to become licence-agnostic "because it pleases our sponsors".
Cambridge Research Laboratory
Compaq Computer Corporation
jg pa dec com
] [Thread Prev