[CMake] QtDialog isn't installed?

[clinton at elemtech.com]

On Tuesday 20 November 2007 10:45:56 am Mike Jackson wrote:
> 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?

I get the impression Brandon thinks the QtDialog code is proprietary.
Brandon, what license are you attributing the QtDialog code with?
Its BSD licensed, like ParaView is.

Clint