samba license change

Olivier Galibert galibert at
Wed Oct 10 15:00:36 UTC 2007

On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 01:25:17PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> I must say I'm sorry to step into this flamefest, but weren't the QT 
> licensing issues the reasons why we have gnome in the first place?

That was the #1 reason, when Qt's license was not DFSG-compliant.  I
suspect #2 and #3 were "me no likee C++" and "RedHat needs to have
something different vs. what Suse does".  Without #2 and #3 the
solution would not have been gnome but simply reimplementing a
reasonably compatible but better version of Qt.  The standard GNU
method in other words.

> So all in all it turns out that despite all trolltech's promises,
> they don't follow through?

They put the library under GPLv2, how is that not following through?
There wasn't the GPLv3 nightmare at the time, and given their presence
in the embedded market I can understand they can be hesitant when it
comes to being pulled into it.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list