Here are the top 24 lines of the LICENSE file in the root of the Qtopia.tgz on externe.net:
The Qtopia Environment is Copyright (C) 2000-2001 Trolltech AS and
 other authors as specified in the file headers.
You may use, distribute and copy the Qtopia Environment under the terms
of GNU General Public License version 2, which is displayed below.
Sharp SDK is copyrighted by Sharp and *not* released under the GPL.
So please try to avoid using libsl and libdtm unless you application
absolutely *requires* it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
          GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
           Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
             675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
              Preamble
So, under the GPL, he has the right to redistribute, no?
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79944\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]
First of all if you all can work better believing I'm a troll go that easy route now onto the SDK.
Admitingly I've not downloaded the two files from Guyhlem because it was obvious that they're warezed copies.
Distributing Embedix.tar.gz is illegal because (remember I've not downloaded it, so the list might be incomplete)
1.) source code of gcc is lacking (it is not a unpatched gcc for sure)
2.) source code of glibc is lacking
3.) source code of zlib is missing
4.) the tool/script to create the toolchain is missing
Now onto Qtopia.tar.gz and solely basing on your license extract
1.) Good to know it is the GPL edition
2.) The sourcecode is missing though. To word it in drastic sounds you've been bullshitted otherwise you would not wonder why Sharps libqpe-1.6.3 seems to be faster or different. But that is a complete different story.
3.) The source code (the exact source code used to built the binaries) need to be provided
at the same place. And this is where it gets hard for Guyhlem because someone else already
violated the license he will be unable to get in conformance with the GPL ( I hope I will be not true though)
4.) While he is luckily allowed to distribute the GPL parts (if he will be able to provide source code) the libsl and libdtm parts still seems to be illegal. This does not look like a written statement from sharp and it talks about using (probably as in linking) and not about redistributing. So that part looks unresolvable illegal
To summarize the SDK itself is IMHO illegal, the resulting work is illegal as well (using boolean logic here). If you can live with that than live with that. But please stop fooling yourself you do it because of your Freedom or Free Software and don't compare your work to other Free Software Projects.
While you think OE is tainted, unstable huge. Yes with over 2000 packages it is a huge source of knowledge, not every package might be packaged right but it is 100% Free Software and 100% legal.
For example each packaged binary contains the name of the sources and names of applied patches. Sources are mirrored for two years and patches are in the source control management system for ever. To my knowledge OE based Distributions like OpenZaurus, Familiar, OpenSimpad, OpenBeagle, OpenOMAP are the only legal distributions for Linux Handheld devices.
On the other hand not every package is packaged right, not every included binary is bugfree but Freedom doesn't mean being Free of bugs, Freedom itself is not easy to gain and to keep. If you decide to be Free like most of the OE folks have decided there might be bugs and shortcomings at first but we all gain for perfection.
