[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 12:29:15
[Download RAW message or body]

Alex wrote:
> 
> Yes, but look at the comercial contributions to the Unix world.  For
> instance Soft Updates for those BSD types.  Kirk took HIS time and HIS
> effort to write some code to greatly enhance FFS and it's speed and
> saftey, while keeping it free for individuals, while asking for money for
> those people making money off of his effort.  To me that's only fair.  And
> look at RPM's contributions.  Hell, recently discussed was a certian
> member of a certian OS's development team trying to rescind the copyright
> on free software they've written.  Don't think it's not possible for that
> to happen to GPL'd software.  If the code has never been notarized, or
> passed through a legal type, the copyright doesn't mean much at all.  Hmm.
> Not to mention that IF IF IF the Trolls decided to make Qt completely non
> free, that I'm sure by then there would be a GPL'd derivitave of sorts.
>
There is already a derivative in erly development.  FreeQT, 
This debate is started because a few people have seen where the LGPL 
would hurt Troll Tech.  This is not a good thing.   
>
> > Moreover, they are  the cause of the gnome/kde  split. This a terrible
> > waste of human resources.
> 
> Well, I think that it was the "die-hard" GNU types that caused the split.
> If they were that unwilling to accept TT's very GENEROUS license, then
> that's their problem.  Not TT's.
>
We can debate to the end of time who's fault it is.  The fact is that
KDE is ready for prime time TODAY.  GNOME may go BETA in erly 1999. 
>
-- 
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]