comp.os.linux.advocacy.Qt. I See A Great Need.
In article <linux.kernel.m0y2gA2-001C2BC@kroete2.freinet.de>,
Erik Corry <erik@arbat.com> wrote:
>
>In article <199802111409.JAA18836@cyprus.atlantic.net> you wrote:
>
>> That's not true at all. Each version of Qt, when it is released with
>> a given license, is usable according to the terms of that license in
>> perpetuity. Future versions may be more restricted (and no, I don't
>> expect that, either), but that doesn't change the fact that (e.g.) Qt
>> 1.32 will always be usable for free software development.
>1.32 will be totally useless for free software development
>the moment we start finding bugs in it or want to improve
>it.
And this is a bad thing?
Wanting to improve a library can lead to all sorts of hilarious
side-effects, as has been distressingly evident in the lifecycle
of libc5. (And, to provide some thread of kernel relevance to the
mailing list, it's bitten the kernel, though not to as great an
extent. Not having any published interfaces is good in that you
can't break them when you change things, though it's even worse
for module maintainers than a moving published interface.)
____
david parsons \bi/ Still can't get KDE, or X, to work with libc5.0.9.
\/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu