[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-freeqt
Subject:    Re: [freeqt] Future of Harmony
From:       Mark Hamstra <mark.hamstra () bentley ! com>
Date:       1998-11-22 0:28:43
[Download RAW message or body]

Mosfet wrote:
> 
> cet@elinux.net wrote:
> >
> > Mosfet wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > > Linux will remain free and open, and please don't tell me unsub scribe
> > > because I think your logic is flawed. A) I do not seem to be in the
> > > minority opinion, B) I want to see the best possible scenerio for Linux,
> > > and creating two versions of a free toolkit does not seem sound.
> >
> > OK, I'll spell it out so you can understand:
> >
> 
> Rudeness is a mechanism used when people don't have the skills to
> politely debate a point. I realize that that itself is a rude comment,
> but oh well - I'm getting tired of you saying the same things without
> you addressing any of my rebuttals to why you are wrong.

You are *not* rebutting any of Carl's points, you are simply asserting
that they don't matter while offering arguments orthogonal to Carl's
thesis.  That doesn't count as refutation, nor is it persuasive. 

> > 1. KDE may become the defacto standard mainstream desktop for Linux.
> > 2. If it does, commercial developers may feel that the only way to write
> >    viable Linux software is to conform to KDE.
> > 3. If they do and there is no Harmony, commercial developers will be
> >    obligated to follow whatever constraints and terms TT chooses to put
> >    in their commercial license, and pay whatever price TT chooses.
> >
> > The logic here is clear and as easy as 1-2-3.  I'm not saying it will
> > happen, I'm saying it's possible if we don't do something to make it
> > impossible.  That's all.
> >
> 
> No, the logic is flawed. I'm not going to go into all the points I
> mentioned before and you cannot seem to address, but remember that AFAIK
> both the FSF and the Harmony project's goal was to create a free version
> of QT for *Open Source* and *GNU* developers and users. Not to give
> commercial companies who are going to charge end-users a freebie. 

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to remember what you "know," but your
premise is flawed: there was much discussion as to whether Harmony
should be GPL or LGPL, and much of that debate concerned whether closed
source software vendors should be able to use Harmony.  IIRC, the
working position was that Harmony should be LGPL, *not* restricted to
Open Source or GNU/FSF use only.

It is not simply a question of giving ISV's a "freebie," but rather is a
question of whether the promotion of a unified and consistent desktop
environment that can contain a mix of Open Source and closed source
applications justifies placing Harmony under the less restrictive LGPL. 

> It seems agreed by RMS, Bruce, ESR, and others that QT is now a free
> product for the OpenSource community.

Which, regardless of whether it is true or not, is wholly irrelevant to
the point Carl was making and that you were "rebutting."
 
> RMS stills want's Harmony, but only so there doesn't have to be patches
> flying around. 

That is not entirely true.  Yes, RMS is concerned about the logistical
details of "patches only" modifications to QPL'd code, but he also
stated concern for the fact (in his opinion) that the QPL is not
compatible with the GPL and that this makes commingled use of QPL and
GPL code legally encumbered.

> If that is enough to keep the project going, than fine.
> But making distribution easier seems like a small reason for a project
> as big as Harmony when QT is now free.

However, if your aim is to provide a desktop environment that is
hospitable to any mix of free and commercial apps, then the legally
dubious nature of KDE+QT+GPL can be enough to lead many companies to
avoid the use of KDE and the potential integration benefits it offers. 
Whether that is wholly justified or not, it is much simpler for a
commercial vendor to avoid any possibility of liability, copyright
infringement, license encroachment, or simply having the rug pulled out
from underneath its applications by avoiding KDE entirely rather than
expending the legal and technical research and effort necessary to
persuade itself that KDE-based development is safe.
 
> If you want to develop a version of QT that commercial companies don't
> have to pay for but then charge end-users for, go ahead. I think that is
> rather misguided since those who contribute to OpenSource already have a
> free alternative in QT. The only ones I see gaining from this is
> commercial oragnizations who get to cheat a company out of a license, a
> company who very generously made their product free for us.

I hardly see how the pejorative "cheat" applies, but as long as you see
no advantage in an environment that integrates and allows for
interoperability between open and closed source applications, then you
are essentially correct.
 
> And it really doesn't matter. I already addressed the above points but
> you ignore it. I'm sick of beating my head in the wall.

Perhaps if you actually had addressed Carl's concerns, then he wouldn't
feel compelled to reiterate tham.
 
> > FACT: TT is in the software business to make money.
> 
> RMS calls TT a free software comapany. I agree.

No, RMS finds it curious that TT now appears to be in the position of
being a free software company.  Leaping from that observation to the
implication that this nascent free software company is as fully
trustworthy as those free software companies with long and established
presences in the free software community and records of free software
contributions was, I believe, not Richard's intent.   
 
> > FACT: If the above scenario comes to pass, TT stands to make a LOT of
> >       money.
> 
> So are you representing commercial or OpenSource developers. I thought
> Harmony was for the Free Software community...

Again, you thought wrong --at least insofar as you construe Harmony to
be *exclusively* for the Free Software community.  Furthermore, whether
one is "representing" commercial or OpenSource developers' interests
does not dictate one's position on the advisability of promoting TT into
an autonomous controlling position with regard to a necessary software
technology. 
 
> > FACT: By not denying that they would sue the Harmony developers, they
> >       implied that they might.  They could have at least said "That's
> >       not the way we do business."  But they didn't.
> 
> Rubbish. They never threatened to sue Harmony, and actually did what
> they project initially wanted. Don't fault them for remaining silent
> while formulating a plan. That's an entirely reasonable thing to do.

What, exactly, would take them this long to "plan," and why should those
plans never be mentioned until such time as Harmony had acheived a good
deal of technical success?  Additionally, I don't believe that there is,
to date, any kind of commitment from TT not to sue Harmony developers,
nor is there any such guarantee explicit or implicit in the QPL. 
Continuing to work on an LGPL'd Harmony while looking at QPL'd TT source
is not something I'd recommend.
 
> > FACT: TT did not release QT as Open Source back when doing that would
> >       clearly have saved the Open Source community a lot of grief,
> >       division, and embarrassment.  They could have but they didn't.
> >
> 
> More rubbish. This is a company and it takes a lot of time for people in
> the real world to formulate a strategy. They didn't *have* to do
> anything at all.
> 
> I'm sorry it didn't match your timeframe...

This is a *small* company that took more time "planning" this change
than the Microsoft dreadnought took in reversing its Internet course. 
It is simply not persuasive that TT always had or has the best interests
of the Open Source community at heart.  Neither is the case compelling
that one should naively trust TT to "do the right thing" in terms of
either an Open Source or commercial developer's interests.  I don't
believe the Trolls to be miscreants on the order of Bill Gates, but
neither do I believe them to be free of self-interested motives.  If you
combine that with legally dubious licenses on Qt and a KDE effort that
plays fast and loose with the GPL, and there is good reason to be
cautious.

Yes, TT didn't strictly *have* to offer Qt under the QPL, but neither
are we compelled by such licensing terms to ignore its shortcomings or
the comparative advantages of the FSF's licenses. 
 
> > OPINION: The last two facts clearly show that their profits are more
> >          important to them than helping the Open Source community. I'm
> >          not saying there's anything wrong with that.  After all, they
> >          are in the software business to make money.
> >
> 
> These people just made their main product free to the OpenSource
> community and your making them seem like profit mongering devils...

Invective aside, the two are not mutually exclusive, and it is only
prudent to examine all the possibilities available under the QPL before
committing one's development efforts to a dependency on Qt.
 
> > It is clearly in TT's financial best interest that the above scenario come
> > to pass, especially if Linux becomes a mainstream OS.  By choosing to
> > release QT as Open Source now that Harmony and GNOME are nearing completion,
> > it's possible that they hope to diffuse potential future threats to their
> > profits before they are completed.  Or is the timing just a coincidence?  TT
> > must have had some motivation for this license change and for profit
> > companies  generally do not do things just to be nice.  If that were the
> > case, they could have done that when it really would have mattered.
> >
> 
> This is something that looks like it was in the works for a long time,
> and so what if TT is trying to protect it's profits. Why are you so hung
> up in defending other companies. Seems very non-FSFish to me for an FSF
> project...

It is *not* necessarily a matter of protecting other companies
profits'.  To wit: if an ISV sees Qt and/or KDE as too encumbered in
terms of their licensing or the control they give to TT (and it doesn't
take much to sway the decision when such vendors are already having a
difficult time making committing to support non-Win32 under the least
encumbered of scenarios), then you simply won't see commercial software
from that vendor that fully supports the KDE environment.  That is a
loss that is felt by anyone who would want to use that software within
KDE, so it is not solely the interests of commercial software vendors
that are at stake.
 
> > You're asking me to believe that somehow TT is overlooking its obligation to
> > its investors, owners, and employees just to do something nice.  Bullshit.
> > There is the potential that they could all end up millionaires and you
> > expect me to believe that they are going to turn it down for a chance to be
> > benevolent contributors to the Free Software community?  Yeah, right.  I've
> > been working in the software and computer business for a long time and I can
> > tell you that when serious profits are concerned, ethics go right out the
> > window.
> >
> > I may not be Eric Raymond or Bruce Parens, that doesn't mean that I have to
> > be a sheep, blindly following the rest of the flock.
> >
> > I at least will concede the possibility that I may be wrong.  You should go
> > back and read your messages.  There is no room in your mind for the concept
> > that you may not know everything.  Instead, you're trying to ram your
> > opinion down my throat because there's no way that you could be wrong!
> >
> 
> Okay, I might be wrong.
> But I doubt it ;)

Don't.
 
> > Thanks for listening,
> > Carl Thompson
> >
> > PS: This list is for the development of an LGPLed QT clone (hence the name).
> >     You have already stated that you will no longer work to this end, so
> >     you should leave the list instead of using it to distract those people
> >     who use it or bash people who still believe in its purpose.  Just
> >     because you no longer want to help, don't make the list unusable for
> >     those that do.
> 
> PS: Who are you to tell me to leave the list? Don't like my point of
> view - too bad. It's a relevant topic and I don't see anyone else
> rallying to your side and telling me to shut up.

Sorry, but Carl is right: shut up.  If you have nothing to contribute in
the way of Harmony development or more considered discussion, then you
have nothing to contribute. 
 
> Is that what you do when someone disagrees with you, ask them to leave?
> I didn't start this thread, so it is open to discussion. If you are
> going to spread FUD I will correct you. If you would like to see the
> thread end then quit spreading FUD...

Raising legitimate concerns in an uncertain and dubious context is not
spreading FUD.  Neither is pointing out the potential ramifications of
the differences between the LGPL and TT's business model under the QPL. 
In fact, clearly understanding those differences is precisely what is
needed by those faced with the decision of whether to continue Harmony
development.  Sweeping all such considerations and concerns beneath a
hasty and blanket endorsement of Qt under the QPL is not.

--
Mark Hamstra
Bentley Systems, Inc.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]