From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-31 02:06:04
David Abrahams wrote:
> > /* This file is part of Qt and is available under the Q Public License,
> > available from http://doc.trolltech.com/3.3/license.html
> > */
> > Is adding such a string acceptable? Clearly we need to do something,
> > but what?
> Given the analysis at
I should not that all requirement which are failed by QPL mention "library".
There's nothing about examples.
> I think it would be _much_ better if we could replace these files with
> homegrown equivalent, or have the BBv2 tests download the files
Ok, I happened to have some small Qt program I wrote myself, so I've changed
the example to be based on that program, and now it has my copyright.
> Anything we have in the boost tree whose license
> doesn't make it "free for any use" is going to be a barrier to
I'm still curious. You say "barrier to adoption". How many users really think
it's a barrier? Do they really that picky when it comes to files which are
not parts of any library, and so are not linked with?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk