Thanks, Waldo. While I don't agree with every point of your response, it
it well-argued, reasonable, non-inflammatory, and covers all of the
_important_ issues.

I should also mention that I don't think that any of this mess is the
fault of the KDE folks. It's simply that I feel that they are the only
ones that have a chance of resolving it.

> I don't think that adding a clause to the GPL that explicitly allows linking
> with Qt is a very good solution because that basically just moves to a new
> generations of problems where people end up mixing GPL-with and GPL-without
> code which is bound to result in the same flamefests we already have seen too
> often. There are already enough different licenses out there and the GPL is
> already complicated enough lets not try to worsten that situation.

I am in complete concurrance with every part of your posting except this
last paragraph. Which is not to say that it's wrong, but rather that I
regard it as an unproven opinion, rather than an established fact.

Anyway, if people are too annoyed with this off-topic thread, I'll shut
up. (Yes, I know there's licensing mailing list, I wonder if anyone
actually reads it, given the "disinterest in licensing issues" mentioned
earlier.)

-- 
Talin (Talin@ACM.org)       "I am life's flame. Respect my name.
www.sylvantech.com/~talin    My fire is red, my heart is gold.
www.hackertourist.com/talin  Thy dreams can be...believe in me,
                             If you will let my wings unfold..."
                               -- Heather Alexander
 
>> Visit http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<