[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 3:45:44
[Download RAW message or body]

Mosfet wrote:
> 
> Mark Hamstra wrote:
> >
> > Mosfet wrote:
> > >
> > > cet@elinux.net wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mosfet wrote:

[...]

> > 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. 

Wait: 1) Carl voices a concern; 2) You claim it doesn't matter without
directly addressing the concern.  The context of discussion is Carl's
concern, so saying that concern is not relevant to the discussion
doesn't even make sense, much less serve as refutation of that
position.  Offering your own position and making orthogonal observations
and arguments does not constitute refutation.

> Sorry I
> haven't persuaded you, but that's not really important to me.

If you're not trying to persuade this list's readership, then what
exactly are you trying to do?

> > > > 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.

"...Harmony was aimed at creating a version of QT for the free software
community."  That is, at best, a misleadingly imprecise statement of the
goals of Harmony.  At the time of Harmony's inception, Qt was already
available to the free software community after a fashion, so it is
precisely the details of that fashion and availability that are
Harmony's matrix.  Certainly some of the details that Harmony sought to
address include: 1) access to source code for modification and bug
fixing purposes, 2) unambiguous legal status when used with GPL code, 3)
provision of a set of base toolkit libraries and a desktop development
environment free from commercial licensing or royalty concerns that
could be used for open or closed source development (hence the GPL vs.
LGPL discussion).  Exactly which mix of these and other objectives
motivated specific Harmony developers is difficult to say, but it is
certainly not fair to dismiss creation of common libraries that could be
used for both open and closed source development as an objective and
motivation for Harmony developers.

The current draft QPL license satisfies 1) --although it entails
annoying logistical requirements, and is distressingly cavalier in its
failure to specify what constitutes a legitimate "patch" in the context
of the license; it does not satisfy 2); neither does it even seek to
satisfy 3).

In other words, much of the motivation for Harmony remains; perhaps
enough to justify its continuance.


[...]

> > > 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 ;)

Uhm, I think that the conclusion of Carl's 1), 2), 3) argument was that
"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."  Neither referencing RMS, Perens, and ESR to
the effect that QT is now OpenSource nor restating your own quote as to
the goal of the Harmony project is germane to Carl's concern.  You are
decidedly "off topic" in your attempt to rebutt. 

> > > 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 you were already aware of this concern over the incompatibility of
the QPL and GPL, then why did you initially seek to limit the scope of
RMS' concerns to there being "patches flying around"?
 
[...]

> TT is hospitable to closed source developers, more so than Motif (which
> required per user licenses), and is infintely more OSS friendly. 

That is not manifestly clear.  Motif is not the product of a single
company, nor under a single company's control, which goes a long way
toward alleviating many ISV's concerns over "sole sourcing." 
Furthermore, for ISV's that already have Motif licensing agreements and
existing Motif code bases, converting that code and negotiating new Qt
licenses entail certain operational and opportunity costs.  A different
set of costs would be involved in using GTK or Harmony under the LGPL,
but it is hard to construe these costs in any way but less than those
associated with Qt.

In other words, Qt is not a clear win for ISV's, and an LGPL'd toolkit
would be more attractive.  Exactly what difference this makes to the end
user or Open Source developer is unclear, but it is worthy of
consideration. 

> 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.

And until such time as the QPL is finalized, it is premature to call for
termination of Harmony or to offer definitive claims as to what will or
will not be possible under the QPL.


> No, QT allows "interoperability between open and closed source
> applications". 

Not if the closed source developers don't use it.

> It's just if you are a commercial developer you have to
> pay for your tools. Just like Motif. 

Not quite; see above.

> For the free software community it
> is *free*, hopefully even by Debian guidelines in the final draft.

It's one kind of free, but a really annoying kind as long as it can only
be developed via patches and cannot easily use GPL code. 
 
> > > 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.

What commercial companies are going to do is a part of Harmony past,
present, and future.  Dismissing that as a legitimate grounds of
discussion is not an adequate address of Carl's concerns, and thus not
"on target" --you're simply refusing to recognize the target and setting
up one of your own that you know how to hit.

> > > > 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.

Well, that's a fair sight different proposition than trying to enlist
RMS to your cause by implication.  I, for one, will be amazed if Richard
comes out and says, "Anything that Troll Tech wants to do is ok by me. 
Because they were nice enough to make QT available under the QPL, no
free software developer should pursue any project that might encroach on
their revenue stream."  That ain't gonna happen; nor should it.
 
> > > > 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. 

Look, I don't care how many times you repeat it.  Providing a friendly,
useable, royalty-free toolkit that could be employed by commercial
developers *was* one of the points of Harmony, is not addressed in the
same fashion by Qt, and may still contribute to some Harmony developers'
motivation in continuing the project.  Repeatedly asserting that this
was not the point of Harmony is *not* responding to Carl's concern,
regardless of whether you believe it is true or not.

> Now you are making it seem like making
> Harmony available to commercial developers was a primary focus, which is
> false.

That is *not* what I am saying, and that *is* false.  In point of fact,
I don't believe that Harmony ever had a "primary focus."  It has always
had multiple foci of concern, and not all of those concerns are
addressed by Qt under the draft QPL.

[...]

> Well, you are in the minority. 

I have seen no evidence to support or deny that assertion.

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

Bull.  TT has engaged in a balancing of their own interests and those of
the free software community.  Given that those interests are not
completely congruent, there is no "right thing": it is a matter of
perspective, with each side having its own ideas as to the optimal
outcome.  RMS would definitely prefer Qt to be under the GPL; many of us
would prefer it under the LGPL; TT now prefers the QPL.  It is not
possible to satisfy everyone's concerns simultaneously.  Given what TT
has offered, it is up to the Harmony developers to decide whether that
adequately addresses the corncerns that motivated the project in the
first place, or whether there is cause to continue.  Shouting down
someone who tries to offer input to that decision making process as
ungrateful, greedy, mistrustful, and ignorant is not a legitimate
response. 
 

--
Mark Hamstra
Bentley Systems, Inc.

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