qt dll naming question

[Chris January]

> > Chris January wrote:
> > >>On Saturday 08 January 2005 15:29, "Thiago A. Corrêa" wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Ralf Habacker wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>Hi all,
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >><snip>
> > >>
> > >>>>The question is now, how does trolltech handle this stuff. Does 
> > >>>>anyone know if their release numbering system is
> > >>
> > >>technical, say by
> > >>
> > >>>>api changes or political driven ?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>cygwin for example uses a mixed system depending on the related 
> > >>>>package. Basically the use only on number, the major 
> number, but 
> > >>>>there are also packages, which uses the minor number 
> too and some 
> > >>>>packages uses additional the patch level number.
> > >>>
> > >>>Trolltech usually break binary compability only in major
> > >>
> > >>releases, the
> > >>
> > >>>middle number changes when new classes are added.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>That mean we should use only the major number like cygwin does.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Yes - I think Trolltech probably assume people will be 
> distributing
> > > the Qt DLL with their apps on Windows so it doesn't matter 
> > about the
> > > version granularity. However because Qt/Win Free is GPL
> > people would
> > > not only have to distribute the Qt DLL with their apps, but
> > also make
> > > the full source available. Far better to get people to 
> simply point
> > > users to the kde-cygwin site to download the binary and source. 
> > > However if we adopt this policy it would be better to 
> > switch to only
> > > using the major version number, as you say, so that people
> > can always
> > > download the latest version without any issues.
> > > 
> > > Chris
> > 
> > They have to distribute their own compiled binaries anyway since ABI
> > between compilers is not guaranteed :)
> > 
> > Since *most* GPL software is distributed over the internet,
> > developers 
> > using the GPLed Qt can simply point to this project somewhere 
> > in their 
> > documentation, that would satisfy the GPL since it's the 
> same medium 
> > that the user got his binary ( internet )
> 
> This is incorrect. The FSF have said the GPL sources need to 
> be on the same site as the GPL binaries. It's no good simply 
> linking to them.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites

Chris