[CMake] QtDialog isn't installed?

[Brandon Van Every]

On Nov 20, 2007 12:52 PM,  <clinton at elemtech.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

This has nothing to do with it.

Some Linux distros, i.e. Debian, have more stringent requirements on
how "free" the software has to be, in order to be included in the
distro.  "Here's some Qt code, solve your own licensing problems if
you actually want to use it" doesn't meet the requirements of policies
like the DFSG.  The risk, then, is that a DFSG policy enforcer will
demote CMake.  The goal of CMake is to be included as a ubiquitous
build tool, like Autoconf.  This isn't an issue for ParaView because
it really doesn't matter if ParaView is included in Linux
distributions or not.  Whereas for CMake it matters very much.  The
perceived hassle of needing to download and install CMake is a big
barrier when trying to convert the Autoconf crowd.  That gets even
worse if CMake is shunted into "non-free" folders or worse, not
allowed in various distros at all.


Cheers,
Brandon Van Every