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

List:       kde-freeqt
Subject:    Re: [freeqt] Future of Harmony
From:       Mosfet <mosfet () jorsm ! com>
Date:       1998-11-22 1:54:31
[Download RAW message or body]

cet@elinux.net wrote:
> 
> Mosfet wrote:
> 
> > ...
> 
> > > 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 ;)
> 
> Great!  Then can we count on your help just in case you are wrong?  It may
> not be likely, but let's not take any chances...  I know you feel I'm being
> silly (you said so), but I just want to make sure Linux remains free and
> open just like you do.
> 

Well, no one has stated how this helps free software any longer - only
how it helps commercial software. The general consensus is that the QPL
is free and I would rather see the excellent work done here integrated
into the other free toolkit - Qt2.0. The sum of both efforts has to be
better than either of the projects alone. Another reason why I feel as I
do is that TT took a huge step in giving us a *gift*. They did not have
to change anything in the license, they could of sued Harmony, and they
could have never even released QT as free for personal use. Yet they
never did any of these things and instead gave us an excellent OSS
toolkit. Continuing as is seems like a slap in the face, since the needs
of OSS developers have been addressed. I don't think it was ever this
project's intent to cut into TT's commercial revenue, only to make it
open to the community. Cutting into the commercial revenue of an OSS
company seems like a mean thing to do, and I think that is now mainly
what Harmony would do. People have to get out of this "TT is evil" mode.
They are not and never were. And now they are even more our Linux
allies. Trying to hurt their commercial sales is not cool.

RMS does have some valid points about distribution, but I think that his
assertion that maintaining a whole new toolkit is logistically easier
than working with the patch+pristine code regulation is wrong. Anyone
who has looked at either Harmony or TT's source can see why ;)
Thankfully, all parties involved seem willing to work together to find
an acceptable solution in the final QPL draft. That way all parties
involved can help create the best GUI toolkit for Linux - not just TT
developers on one side, and people guessing at how TT is doing things on
the other. 

I could get into whole other arguments - like how the OSS patches
against QT will not work with Harmony and thus severly limit it's
effectiveness. One of the main advantages of Harmony was the open
development model which TT did not have. That advantage is gone. Are
people who want to improve the QT library supposed to write a patch for
QT (which they could not do before) and a patch for Harmony? I don't
think so. How about how much work would have to be done in order to get
it compatible with the new 2.0 API's, and thus it would probably be
useless with future CVS versions of KDE (unless you suggest KDE
developers wait for Harmony to catch up - not likely before and
certainly not likely now that QT is OSS). That's yet another problem I
don't think you have considered. I think Harmony would hurt KDE and Open
Source now more than it would help if it does not share what it has
created with it's newly converted antagonist. It would certainly make
progress slower.

But, then again - it is up to the individual coder. If you feel it
should go on feel free to do so, but I think you will be lacking in
support.

> Thanks,
> Carl

-- 
Daniel M. Duley - Unix developer & sys admin.
mosfet@jorsm.com
mosfet@mieterra.com
ksiag@lowrent.org

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