Just want to let you know:

I got many mails from users who like to see harmony continued ( as you ma=
y
have expected ) - many of them repeated the points already mentioned by m=
any
people on the list.
I=B4ll attach a mail which summarized most points - you may want to read =
it
even through there not much new if you followed the discussion.

I=B4d personally like to continue - but without enough man-power
there's the danger of fading away :(((

-------------------------------------------------------------=20
I think it is essential that the Harmony project continue to build an LGP=
L
version of the Qt API.
The new QPL license of Qt is Open Source, but it carries with it the same
problems for a library as does the GPL: contamination of linked applicati=
ons
(note that this is not "contamination" in the sense as used in the Open S=
ource
 Definition), although more indirectly.

When it was found in past years that parts of the standard C libraries of
Linux where GPL'd, much effort was expended to ensure that the Linux comm=
unity
would have fully GPL-free system libraries (LGPL, BSD, whatever, but not =
GPL).
This whole issue has since been long forgotten, but it was very important=
 at
the time, because with GPL'd libraries, Linux would not have been "free" =
for
use with non-GPL applications, which translates to: troubles with BSD
utilities and X, and no xv, Applix, Oracle...
Note that the issue here was not that the libraries should be "free" or
"Open Source", but that the licensing of the Operating System environment
should not affect the licensing of any applications running on top of it:
i.e. the freedom of application developers.  The Linux community did not =
want
to hamper development of commercial applications for Linux in any way.

Similarly, if a QPL'd Qt would ever become a part of the "standard librar=
ies"
of Linux, it would no longer be "free" for applications that do not satis=
fy
the QPL requirements.  For such (commercial/non-free) applications, Linux
would be reduced to a proprietary Operating System licensed by Troll Tech=
=2E
Note that *users* of such applications would not be affected, but develop=
ers
would, which makes the problem somewhat less transparent than the problem=
s
with the GPL.  Developers would be subjected to commercial licensing from=
 a
company to be allowed to develop for Linux.  Although some "strictly free
software" Linux user would probably not care about this, it is contrary t=
o
the intentions of the Linux community at large.
Thus, the Linux community will probably not allow this to happen, just as=
 it
has initiated corrective action with a similar issue in the past.

Therefor, if we ever want to see KDE a fully integrated part of the Linux
system (not just an add-on on some commercial distributions), it is essen=
tial
that an LGPL'd (or otherwise more leniently licensed) version of the Qt A=
PI
be available, or that KDE be rewritten to use another library.

I hope this helps provide you with sufficient incentive to continu your
project at full speed.

Greetings,

--=20
     W.F. Konynenberg <wfk@xos.nl>

---------------------------------------------------------------


bye


  Joerg