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

List:       kde-freeqt
Subject:    Re: [freeqt] GPL vs LGPL
From:       Karl Nelson <kenelson () ece ! ucdavis ! edu>
Date:       1999-04-01 8:22:48
[Download RAW message or body]

>> 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
[....]

I am not sure how much of it is truly myth.  Some people have
pointer out StarOffice and several others as a basis for claims
that Qt is not required for KDE.  However, I would ask
exactly how many of the libraries provided by KDE operate
indepently without Qt (or Qt types).  Qt has a somewhat
troubling habit of providing a partial C++ container
library.  If people are using the Qt widget set, doubtless
these containers are used through the project so I can't see
that KDE libraries would do much good to other widget sets.  
If that is true (and I don't know because I haven't examined
KDE in depth), that those other widget sets being used to 
write for KDE would at best be emulating look and free (and
possibly application interoperablity).

I still believe having a LGPL desktop built on a widget set
that is some other license than BSD or LGPL is a serious error.

By the way, I think it is very ironic how you so generously
cheer a proprietary software company just because they
give away a few freebees.  If I were to use that 
same standard, I would have to cheer MicroSoft for
all their fine contribution as well (all those API interfaces
and give aways to universities).  The only difference being
Microsofts contributions didn't have free software only strings.
It was in Troll Techs best interest to try to ride Linux to success.  
Their license managed to nearly put an end to a GNU project and
the freedoms they gave still leaves a strangle hold on the
KDE desktop.

>> >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.

I have no knowledge of the original intent of the original goal of the
Harmony project.  So obviously I can't comment on what I don't know.  
What I question is what benifit it would give to the Harmony project 
to be under GPL as opposed to LGPL.  The functionality already exists 
and is free to people writing GPL software (except those small number 
who are using GPL code without the permision of the authors.)  Therefore, 
that target audience would be very small.  Second as KDE has its libraries 
under LGPL, it would mean that KDE would only be as free as GPL.  Perhaps 
you should attempt to persade them to change their license.   
(You seem to indicate that Harmony was born in without respect to 
KDE.  However, if it weren't for KDE I doubt many people would even
have heard of Qt.)

Further, limiting the projects usefulness will reduce the number of 
contributors.  And since the greatest change facing the Harmony project 
is getting up to speed so that if can make a play of for KDE, it would 
seem like limiting the scope would be the worst thing possible.  Basically,
KDE would never use it and any contribution to it would be pointless.

Finally, I question RMS on his opinion in this matter.  I really don't 
understand what benifit he can see to having Harmony as GPL as opposed 
to LGPL.  He believes that if libraries are GPL, that it will somehow 
force software writters to put out code as free software when they 
otherwise wouldn't.  However, in this case there are other alternatives, 
gtk being number 1.  However beyond that there are dozens of others.  
So GPL Harmony would not force anyone to switch.  Widget sets have been 
done to death; propretary companies will just select the one with the most
flexibly license (which won't be GPL).  On the other hand if they
think it is in the best interest to help an LGPL project for their
own projects, they may well donate time of a professional programmer or
two.

The result of GPL will be that they don't contribute anything to the free
software movement.  And that is what I would consider a shame.  Or
worst is KDE becomes the main desktop, linux becomes a commercial for Qt.  
(I don't want another Motif, slow to adapt and poor to use!)  If Qt
was a open source project it would have progressed much farther and
faster.  Instead it is locked to the will of a company. 

--Karl
  Gtk-- Contributor

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