[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mozilla-general
Subject:    Re: To give you an idea of QtScape code...
From:       robert havoc pennington <hp () pobox ! com>
Date:       1998-04-11 23:48:06
[Download RAW message or body]

agulbra@troll.no (Arnt Gulbrandsen) writes:
> 
> That is not strictly correct.  For example, if you set up a company to
> develop free software, give it away and make money on selling support,
> you can use Qt for free for developing that software.
>

Yes, I suppose so.

> (Someone's going to say that an application which uses a non-free
> library cannot itself be free.  I disagree.  In my opinion the
> relationship between an application and a library is a client-server
> relationship.  An application does not incorporate a library, it
> merely uses the library, just as it uses the kernel, the CPU and other
> hardware, etc.)
> 

I think the argument usually goes that an application which uses a
non-free library depends on non-free software; so while the
application is free, using the application requires one to use and
rely upon non-free software. (Everyone add their own value judgment
here.) Thus the decision about Qt is similar to the decision you might
make between Linux and SCO: whether or not the underlying system will
be free.

You are clearly right that an application is itself free even if its
libraries aren't -- but I don't think anyone is making that argument,
unless they define free to mean "itself free and not relying on
anything non-free," in which case they are correct.

The issue of which things are free and which aren't is quite clear, as
soon as you define the words. The issue of how to define the words is
worth avoiding unless we want to have the same old flamewar.

No one even consider posting to this thread without reading some
DejaNews first!

Havoc Pennington
http://pobox.com/~hp

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]