[CMake] QtDialog isn't installed?

[Brandon Van Every]

On Nov 20, 2007 11:18 AM, Brandon Van Every <bvanevery at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2007 8:36 AM, Bill Hoffman <bill.hoffman at kitware.com> wrote:
> > Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> >
> > >> Anyway, the GPL stuff still stands.
> > >
> > > Why don't you make the Qt dialog source GPL, then?
> > > With those restrictions, some Linux distributions will either strip the
> > > Qt dialog from the source or move whole cmake to an unofficial
> > > repository. Allowing everyone to change the source code (and distribute
> > > the result) is greatly preferred.
> > >
> >
> > People can change it all they want, it just won't get accepted upstream.
> >    I don't want to be forced to accept a license that I don't agree
> > with.  BTW, qt itself has the same sort of license.  Trolltech does not
> > accept changes from the community other than small bug fixes.  This is
> > so they can maintain the dual license that they have.  I don't think
> > there are linux distros that have stopped distribution of Qt are there?
>
> Stopping distribution of Qt isn't the issue.  Stopping distribution of
> semi-proprietary apps that use a Qt commercial license is the issue.
> I'm looking around to see if there have been any flaps over this.
> Meanwhile, here's their license overview.
> http://trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing

I'm perusing the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-dfsg
IANAL, nor am I a Debian archivist.  But it looks like distributing
QtDialog without dual licensing it under the GPL is in violation of
the DFSG.  "You could link this code if you bought a commercial
license from Qt" doesn't fit the wording of the DFSG, nor probably the
sensibility of the people who enforce it.

Bill, I'd like to point out the potential negative consequences of
taking a hard "I like Qt but I don't like the GPL" stance.  It could
create the impression that CMake is "bad and non-free" in the Linux
world, where no such impression previously exists.  I wouldn't risk
doing it and seeing if anyone enforces.  Once an enforcement happens,
it will take forever for CMake to recover the damage to its
reputation.  Religious issues over licensing tend to have snowball /
Slashdot effects; you can expect noise.  Especially from the Autoconf
crowd who will be granted lotsa ammo from such a flap.

Respectfully, I suggest you dual license it or don't include it at
all.  It's not worth the risk.


Cheers,
Brandon Van Every