[CMake] QtDialog isn't installed?

[Mike Jackson]

On Nov 20, 2007 12:34 PM, Brandon Van Every <bvanevery at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

Um.. How does ParaView 3 work then? It is built against Qt and
distributed as opensource?

-- 
Mike Jackson
imikejackson _at_ gee-mail dot com