[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 2:34:11
[Download RAW message or body]

Mark Hamstra wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

All the points I have made seem self-evident and to refute what was
being said... saying something is not relevant is a rebuttal. Sorry I
haven't persuaded you, but that's not really important to me.

> > > 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.

I remember that discussion. While it was decided that it should be LGPL
and not restricted solely to the OSS crowd that does not change the fact
that Harmony was aimed at creating a version of QT for the free software
community. Now I can't speak for all the developers here, but I get the
sense that I am not off base with my assumption. Hell, maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe everyone here has been developing a free version of QT for
commercial interests... I don't think so.

> 
> 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."
>
..begin quote..
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.
..end quote..

Uhm, I think that stating how the goal was to create a free software QT
and not create "freebies" to closed source developers is obviously valid
when discussing the support of "closed source applications". Sorry you
can't see that. Must of been one of those "off topic" rebuttals ;)

 
> > 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.
>

Which RMS and Debian is handling in the proper method, working with TT
on the final version of the draft.
 
> > 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.
>

TT is hospitable to closed source developers, more so than Motif (which
required per user licenses), and is infintely more OSS friendly. The GPL
issues are being worked out by RMS and Debian. If you are intrested in
these topics I suggest you join the Debian mailing list.
 
> > 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.
>

No, QT allows "interoperability between open and closed source
applications". It's just if you are a commercial developer you have to
pay for your tools. Just like Motif. For the free software community it
is *free*, hopefully even by Debian guidelines in the final draft.
 
> > 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.

Again, the responses were on target. This is a discussion about the
"Future of Harmony", not what the poor commercial companies are going to
do.

> 
> > > 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.
>

We will see what his intent is.

> > > 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.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. His only arguments about keeping Harmony alive were
because it was more commercially friendly. That was never the point of
Harmony and I responded to that. Now you are making it seem like making
Harmony available to commercial developers was a primary focus, which is
false.

> 
> > > 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.
>

Okay, you got me - they were planning on gathering you all up and
hanging you in the stockades. They changed their minds at the last
minute...
 
> > > 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.
>

Well, you are in the minority. TT has done the "right thing", and is
working with the free software community to make sure everyone's
concerens are addressed.
 
> 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.
>

If a commercial company sees two incompatible versions of a library to
develop for and has no consistent target platform they could do the same
thing. At least with Gnome their are technical preferences involved -
here they are the exact same thing, but incompatible (at least with
binaries, which I assume ISV's would ship).
 
> > > 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.

Now I feel even more secure ;)

> 
> > > 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.
> 

I'm simply going on because people keep on posting incorrect
assumptions...

> > 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.
>

Bah
 
> --
> Mark Hamstra
> Bentley Systems, Inc.

-- 
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]