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

List:       kde-freeqt
Subject:    [freeqt] Thoughts on resuming development.
From:       Matt Heck <mheck () www ! surveyorcorp ! com>
Date:       1999-02-19 3:41:30
[Download RAW message or body]

It appears this list isn't as dead as it appeared to be.

   It sounds like there are at least a handful of people that still want
to see Harmony finished.  There are probably more like me who are
cautiously curious to see if there are enough resources to really do so.
However, if the project's going to resume, it's going to need a clear
reason to do so.  That may just be a matter of simply saying, "We feel
that it is in the best interests of the Linux community to encourage the
development and porting of both free and commercial applications for
Linux, and that there must be a zero-license-cost method to achieve such
development and porting to ensure fair competition between private
developers and large corporations" or something civil and reasonable to
that extent.  (Less long-winded would be good, too.)  One other reasonable
point would be that a private company holding control over the primary GUI
API for Linux (which it may be in a few years) would give that company a
very large (historically disproportionate) amount of control over the
evolution of Linux-- particularily if that company has no competition.

   Unless I hear otherwise, I'm going to assume the legal paranoia was
people assuming that you can be sued for copying an API.  Somebody needs
to track down a lawyer on this one, but as far as I know, you can't, and I
can think of some good examples.  One good example is probably the PC
BIOS.  If I remember right, Compaq was the first company to clone the PC
BIOS, and they had to do it from the API up.  They took a bunch of people
who had never seen disassembled BIOS code, handed them the API, and built
it from scratch.  (Ironically, the fact that Compaqs were notoriously
buggy at first was great proof they didn't cheat-- the bugs were largely
undocumented API calls and quirks.)  For us, however, there is a better
example still: X windows.  There are both free and commercial
implementations of X windows, all built to a common API.  For that matter,
there are several commercial implementations of Motif, and Lesstif is
still alive and well.

   Harmony can coexist with Qt for the same reason several commercial X
servers can coexist with XFree86.  There will be performance differrences.
Qt is already multiplatform, and will probably support the Mac before
Harmony can.  Qt will probably take advantage of new hardware acceleration
before Harmony.  It may use less memory.  It may be easier to debug with.
For the little guy, Harmony will be the obvious choice: it's free.  For
the corporations, price may not be the point; there may be many reasons
for them to choose Qt instead; initially, that reason will be 
multiplatform development support.  The point is, the two can coexist
peacefully.

   There is something else to consider here as well: TT would probably be
shooting themselves in the foot in a big way if they go after a legitimate
FSF project without a very, very good reason.  The backlash from the Linux
community would be stupendous.  KDE might very well need to be ported to
GTK/GNOME instead of Qt before a lot of people would consider using it
again-- I certainly wouldn't.  Suffice to say, a lawsuit would not do
wonders for TT's business.

   This brings me to one final point: GTK and GNOME. These projects look
very good, and are maturing rapidly on multiple platforms.  Is it more
appropriate to simply use GTK and GNOME when we're not comfortable with
the Qt licensing?  Or does the Qt/KDE environment really have that much
more to offer?

   Just to touch base with where I'm coming from, I work for Surveyor
Corporation, and we're trying to meet our multiplatform GUI development
needs.  We've presently decided to go with wxWindows, largely because it
is L/GPL.  I would've been hesitant to pay TT's prices for Qt, but the
reality is, we would have done so if we felt it was our best option.  But
we're very strongly supportive of Linux here, and feel it's appropriate to
use open source solutions when they exist, and to contribute back to the
projects we use.  (We expect to contribute a high-performance video object
to wxWindows, unless we find one that meets our needs, which we doubt we
will.)  Also-- and it's kinda hard to put my finger on this-- the
licensing for Qt just seemed... well... kinda half-assed, unfortunately.
I guess we'll see how it works out.

   So now you kinda know where I'm coming from, where it looks to me like
Harmony is at, and where the rest of the world has sort of wandered to in
the meantime.  To me, the issue is not Harmony vs. Qt-- the issue is
Harmony vs. GTK/GNOME.  I think there are plenty of reasons to build
Harmony if Qt is where things are going-- but if GTK/GNOME is an approach
that doesn't converge much with it, is there much point in working on
both?

   Damn, I sure rambled on THIS time... sorry about that =]

   Thoughts?

   --Matt

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