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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: [freeqt] Re: FreeQt concerns
From:       Kevin Forge <forgeltd () usa ! net>
Date:       1998-04-05 13:13:31
[Download RAW message or body]

Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > Bleh.  The GPL is not a panacea, never has been, never will be.  It
> > doesn't guarantee much if the people behind it aren't trustworthy.  This
> 
> I think you are mistaken.
>
If he was then the LGPL would never have been written.  There are times
when the GPL is not the right solution.  For FreeQT / Harmony it is.
>
> > is not to mention, the TT license is VERY fair.  It specifically allows
> > for you to develop software freely based on Qt, as long as your source is
> > freely available.  Sure it prevents you from distributing modified
> 
> The GPL cannot be combined with Qt. Full stop end of story, consult a lawyer
> if you doubt me. The Qt library is not as free or freer than the GPL nor
> is it shipped with the base OS product from Mr Linus Torvalds as you may
> verify by inspection of his tar files.
> 
> > Yes, and a RedHat developer could throw a fit, and revoke any GPL'd
> > software they've written.  I think KDE needs to be saved from people who
>
It's not that easy.  for the License on a GPLd program to change
everyone 
with a line of code in there has to agree.  This is why the Kernel 
will Always be GPLd.  There are 1000s of programers involved.  If 
1 of them wants to stay GPL the Kernel stays GPL.  This also applies 
to RPM and some other RedHat tools.
>
> Nope. I think before you sound off you should take a course in intellectual
> property law. You cannot revoke a granted license unless the license itself
> grants the right to do so. Yes a GPL product author can take those
> components he/she wrote and release new versions on other licenses, but they
> can never harm or hinder or restrict and retract licenses already granted.
>
Exactly why QT is not dangerus.  We can use the same QT for years if 
Troll Tech were to change the Licens on future versions.  
>
> This helps protect KDE too. Even if the author of say kproject was to go
> commercial the existing version is still GPL'd and safe forever and the GPL
> ensures it can be enhanced.
> 
> > Plenty of people sell free software CDs.  How many people only sell free
> > software? Not RedHat. And how many developers of free software make money
> 
> Red Hat has several CD's of only free software, there are people who
> sell CD's of only the free parts of the Red Hat base, there are people who
> sell Linux consulting working on GPL code.
>
Note the word *ONLY* in the line to which you are replying.
RedHat has a large and Divers product line.  Correct me if I am wrong 
but as far as I know among the biggest money makers for Them is the
AplixWare Office suite.  They also sell WordPerfect, Motif and 
Star Office Plus a zillion other commercial products.  The Margins
are better on free software, but the price is higher on commercial
stuff.  I am willing to bet that RedHat makes more money off Commercial
Software than free Software ... Even with Linux as the Primary 
product.
>
> > off their free software?  I rest my case.
> Lots. Perhaps you'd care to talk to Cygnus solutions for example.
>
How MUCH money dos Cygnos make ?  Do the do it by selling a GPLd 
Library ? 
>
> A fanatic is alays trapped in good/evil win/lose. If you have any doubts
> about commercial backing of Linux take a look at the netscape decisions on
> making Linux a primary platform.
>
That's because Linux has a reputation for not biting Commercial
developers.
If we keep that reputation more will come.  If we cripple Troll Tech
many
will run.  
BTW : Speaking of Netscape.  Linux had to become the primary platform 
for the Open Source concept to work.  After all most free Software 
developers work on and in Linux.
>
> >From the non GPL point of view there is only one thing important - that
> the KDE/Gnome/Whatever toolkits are LGPL not GPL so that picking an
> interface doesn't force application providers who follow the interface to
> be GPL'd. Here KDE is currently weak on two points 1) It has a non
> LGPL internationalisation library. 2) it currently requires Qt. In effect
> the choice of Qt alone forces commercial vendors to pay a 'troll tech tax'
> which if anything will discourage them from using KDE. Once you have
> Harmony/FreeQt the vendors and users can choose - I don't doubt some people
> would find a commercially supported Qt attractive.
> 
> What was effectively the 'motif tax' is one of the things that helped damage
> commercial unix software in the past. It would be very sad to repeat it in
> KDE.
> 
The Problem with Motif is that it had a Per user License.  QT dose not.  
It's strictly a developers bill.  $ 1,500 per developer and and $0 per
user means that QT is cheaper for anybody selling >10 copies of a
commercial
program.  If the Original QT was GPLd Troll Tech would not have a
possibility
of making money off it at all.  
My question is ; Since we all know that an LGPLd FreeQT would destroy
Troll
Tech's income while a GPLd FreeQT would not What do we loose by making
FreeQT
a strictly GPL product rather than LGPL ?
>
> Alan

-- 
A computer without Windows 95 and Internet Explorer is likea piece of
chocolate cake without Catsup and Mustard.

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