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

List:       kde-freeqt
Subject:    Re: [freeqt] GPL vs LGPL
From:       Idris Samawi Hamid <ishamid () acsu ! buffalo ! edu>
Date:       1999-04-01 3:50:35
[Download RAW message or body]



Wolfgang Thaller wrote:

> I'd like to add that some people think that closed-source software is
> justified in some areas. And why should commercial developers pay
> horrendous prices for writing software for KDE? And why should those folks
> who developed less than a sixth (I believe) of the total KDE source code
> get all the money?

This is a myth. You can write software for KDE without Qt. It just happens that Qt
is, at least according to Andy Tai, the best thing out there. It _appears_ to me
that a reason commercial companies want a Qt clone is so that they can have an
equally high-quality toolkit without having to pay Troll Tech. The claim that they
need an LGPL Harmony to
write for KDE seems to be somewhat disingenuous. About Troll Tech, we all tend to
forget that the core developers there put everything on the line to develop Qt in
the first place. We really should be a bit more respectful. I do not begrudge them
a dime they have earned through their sacrifices. And Qt is in a strong sense
something separate from KDE source code. About the money, the revenues earned from
each closed-source software product made with Qt is far greater than the cost of a
commercial license.

> >5. The displeasure of the Trolls and yes, many of KDE's core developers with
> >regards to an LGPL'd Harmony goes against the grain of  "harmony";
> True. The displeasure of all commercial companies except the Trolls and all
> of GNOME's core developers with anything but an LGPL'd Harmony goes against
> the grain of "harmony" too.

But that is not what the project was founded for. The project was founded so that
KDE would be completely free, "harmonizing" KDE with the principles of the free
software movement. All that now remains is some _possible_ GPL incompatibility on
the part of what is now universally agreed to ba a _free_ Qt 2.0. I do not think
that the pleasure of commercial interests was the overriding concern (some of the
old team have explicitly stated this on occasion). Note: not "all commercial
companies" will be displeased; having a company to provide support of their product
is something many commercial developers like. About GNOME: how on Earth will a
GPL'd harmony incur the displeasure of the GNOME people, those great champions of
purely free software?!?!?

> >6. Stallman has been critical of the LGPL;
> ... but still it should be used under certain circumstances (see Karl
> Nelson's post).

But did you see what Stallman himself posted to this list:
Richard Stallman wrote:

> I think it is better to release Harmony under the GPL,
> for mostly the same reasons you

that is, I :-)

> have stated.

I read Karl's post, but he missed (or chose not to address) my point about
"harmony" in the sense of  the original purpose of this project. If a GPL'd Harmony
is not in the interests of those supporting it,  there should be an open admission
on the webpage that the nature of the mission has changed.

Wolfgang Thaller wrote:

> >8. The GPL is free, and it appears that the Trolls are comfortable with the
> > idea of a GPL'd Harmony (and so there should be no fear of suits);
>
> True, but is it worth writing tens of thousands of lines of code just
> because the GPL is a little more free than the QPL?

That is a good question, but I challenge everyone to be honest: if "harmony"
between KDE and the principles of the free software movement has been virtually (if
not absolutely) achieved, then the original goals of Harmony have been virtually
achieved. Now we should state clearly on the website that the present goal of
Harmony is to, for free mind you, develop a Qt-compliant tool that commercial
developers can use to avoid paying Troll Tech. Since this has little to do with the
original purpose of Harmony, the name should be changed too. It appears to me that
the entire focus of the project has changed from an idealistic, principled,
position of bridging gaps in the free software community to something else
entirely.

> If KDE was based on GPLed libraries, there would never be any support by
> commercial companies.

Obviously, the whole point of the GPL is to encourage free software:-). But KDE's
libraries are a different matter. KDE is _not_ Qt.

> Perhaps the KDE project doesn't want support from
> companies writing non-free software.

I will assume you are being facetious here :-)


> But if they don't want it, GNOME will
> get all of it, and KDE will soon be forgotten.

The antecedent is false, and so is the consequent. Even if the antecedent were
true, the consequent would not necessarily follow (Opera, Corel, and others are
doing business with Troll Tech, as they should in my view). But as an aside would
it not be ironic if GNOME, the self-proclaimed "only free desktop" (mind you, I
have nothing against the GNOME people),  turned out to be friendlier to non-free
software than KDE?


> The only real advantage I see to not writing a LGPLed Harmony would be that
> I would finally switch to GNOME and stop bothering you... ;-)

A _GPL'd_ Harmony would make you switch to GNOME? Amazing!!! This is proof that the
present philosophy of Harmony has less to do with the principles of the free
software movement (and the harmonizing of KDE with those principles) and more to do
with serving commercial interests. That's fine (I am not flaming commercial
interests per se), but then let us change the name!

> P.S.: Please don't take anything I've said personal, I don't want to start
> a flamewar...

No problem at all. I truly wish you (and the rest of the Harmony team) the very
best. Just be honest about the change in focus and not hide behind the cloak of
"harmony" with the principles of the free software movement.

Idris Samawi

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