Fwd: Re: Switching to QtTestLib for unit tests

[Harri Porten]

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Brad Hards wrote:

> > Wouldn't it have to be LGPL'ed then?
> I don't see why. It won't be linked into any libkdefoo.so or libkdefoo.a. We
> might need to clarify the policy, but I don't see it as a huge issue.

Apart from strategic reasons point 3) of
http://developer.kde.org/policies/licensepolicy.html was also to simplify
the packaging in a way that allows saying "you can assume all the code in
this package to be licensed under LGPL (or similar) and therefore allow
such and such use of it".

> > Or that. But another non-LGPL'ed dependancy would otherwise have to be
> > well seperated as commercial users would be blocked out from developing
> > with KDE libraries.
> As David Faure pointed out, if you are a commercial Qt licensee, then you can
> get QtTestLib as a commercial Qt Solution.

Sure. For the additional string of 400 Euros attached (see the LSB
discussions).

> If I'm not getting this, can you expand on, or clarify the specific issue that
> you are seeing?

Well, I'm not that big of a fan of the LGPL either. If GPL libraries in
kdelibs are fine with everyone we should definitely consider
dual-licensing new KDE code this way, too. From selling commercial
licenses we could tremendously support our development.

Harri.