corection qt is open source but gtk has no restrictions on use

[azz]

"> I strongly beleive that there is an important advantage

> to offering software under the GPL as opposed to a BSD licence.





But you started out by saying "GTK defines itself by it's freedom more
than

Qt does", clearly implying the LGPL was better than the GPL?"







What I am clearly implying is that the GPL (or LGPL) is better than a
BSD licence.  Do not put words in my mouth.







"The business customers want strong support-after-the-sell, which is,
*by necessity*, non-existent in free licenses. "





But the FLOSS business model is that of a services provider.  You do
not sell the software, you sell service.  Is your choice of words
correct when you say "support-after-the-sell?"







"BTW, how does releasing under another license in *any* way take away
from

the GPL? Its still the GPL, and that software is still just as Free as
any

other GPL'd software. Logically, by dual licensing, you're making the

software MORE free because its now accessible in more than one way."





Because the GPL represents more than just the agreement between the two
parties - the author and the developer who uses the code.  The GPL also
represents the original author's commitment to keep the project free. 
An end user of the code appreciates the freedoms that are afforded by
the GPL (and LGPL).  Dual licencing is less of a strong statement
towards free software.



Do I think MySql and Qt are non-free?  I don't know if I would take it
that far.  Some do.  



I appreciate that I do not have to put so much thought into it when I
use something that is only licenced under the GPL (or LGPL).


-- 
azz