🚀 go-pugleaf

On 19 May 98 03:01:04 GMT, Larry <larry@over.here.com> wrote:
>On 18 May 1998 00:52:10 GMT, Jim Stokes <jim@thebeach.wilmington.net> wrote:
>>>So, Qt's license encourages commercial vendors to put there software under a
>>>free license.
>>
>>No it doesn't.  It encourages folks to try it out with free software
>>and then want to buy it to use it for commercial software.  Qt's license
>>encourages folks to use Qt because they think it's free and then be 
>>coerced into paying for it when they need something for a commercial 
>>app.
>
>IT never ceases to amaze me that those who take and use products made from
>the sweat of another man's brow have the FUCKING, UNMITIGATED, GALL to bitch
>and whine like some fucking RED COMMUNIST when that person tries to make a
>living from his work. I hope you're electricuted the next time you touch a
>computer you sniveling little bastard.

It never ceases to amaze me how those who read Usenet have the FUCKING,
UNMITIGATED, GALL to go off half cocked when making assumptions.

I have no problem with folks making a living selling Qt.  I do have a
problem when they disguise it as free.  It is not.  If someone decides
they like it and are willing to pay for it, fine.  I just don't want
folks confused by the fact that it *appears* free when in reality it
is not.

--
 Jim Stokes
 jim.stokes@wilmington.net