From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fa17c2bd3c0ec0f7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:59:01 -0500
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 13:44:28 -0400
From: Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Qt4Ada: Qt for Ada
References: <44cb39a1$0$32184$636a55ce@news.free.fr> <eafkmo$frp$1@online.de>
 <mailman.12.1154192651.32700.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.12.1154192651.32700.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <pcjsp3-2vt.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.147.74.171
X-Trace: 
 sv3-ag8YKGvoXYRiWXbULLSF+7SieFBTNMFcx7uEmsnUfnBtVLDjSC8jKUOhNanVvXRyJTrtQmO4+z7p7ht!P8bEskAv+DGYLTetB+I3uh8DXi/LAaOEgZjuB03A0bREohTMDlkyvN2tBOFEnupWAf2vwZ2Vyhqn!Va4=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6016
Date: 2006-07-29T13:44:28-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Preben Randhol wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:35:35 +0200
> Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I'd suggest using GMGPL. But this depends on what you want to achieve
>>with Qt4Ada: 
> 
> 
> Does it matter if QT4Ada is GMGPL when QT is GPL? I mean shouldn't
> QT4Ada then be dual licensed so that whether one use the QT GPL or
> non-GPL version one do not get problems?

GMGPL is "GPL Compatible", so GMGPL can certainly be the only way this 
library is licensed (assuming that meets the needs of the developers 
that sign up).

So, I don't see a reason for dual license if GMGPL is what is selected.