Re: Qt becomes Free Software

[luther maxime u-strasbg fr]

On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 08:33:09AM -0700, Mark Galassi wrote:
> 
>     >> 1.  The complaint has been about the QT license and KDE. That
>     >>     is definately solved.
> 
>     luther> still it is not DFSG free, but then i think it would be ok
>     luther> to put it into non-free. ...
> 
> Wait a second: I thought that the DFSG and the Open Source definition
> were the same.  I thought that "open source" meant "satisfies the
> DFSGs".  At least it was so in the original announcement of "open
> source" terminology.

don't know about this, but i think if it is the case, it is not opne source
also, despite what Eric Raymond says.

the point here is what do you consider the proper usage of a library, does it
only mean using it with programs using the library, or does it also mean being
able to develop for it.

Check my previous mail for a more complete argument.

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER