Correct, and this is simple thing is what a lot of anti-KDE folk will
absolutely refuse to accept.
>
> In summary, QT -> GPL, GNOME - GPL, what about _that_ makes one or
> the other inherently preferable or better?
No, the core GNOME and GTK+ libraries are licensed under the terms of
the LGPL. This essentially means closed source works can link to
these libraries. You can't do that with Qt. Whether this is a positive
or a negative is not appropriate to discuss here.
Probably surprising to many (based on the proliferation of ignorant remarks
on various mailing lists), Troll Tech's Qt offering is aligned
more closely with the FSF philosophy than GTK/GNOME (remember the L in LGPL
stands for LESSER after all (well the FSF prefers this now, but the
GNOME/GTK folks continue to use the former version of the license
where the L stands for LIBRARY)).
I think that Qt is a great contribution, but it is misleading to say that
there is no difference between Qt and GNOME licensing.
--jkl
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/