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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: [freeqt] Re: FreeQt concerns
From:       Joel Dillon <emily () cornholio ! new ! ox ! ac ! uk>
Date:       1998-04-05 17:01:27
[Download RAW message or body]

> > 
> You are obviously unaware of the facts.  If QT were to get a new license
> ( worst case scenario is a Motif Like license ) it would mean a lot of
> money 
> for Troll Tech, but only if KDE was a defacto standard and EVERYBODY is
> using it.  That would take a hell of a lot longer than 1 year to happen.

  Don't be too sure ;)

> > Moreover, they are  the cause of the gnome/kde  split. This a terrible
> > waste of human resources.
> > 
> QT is not "the reason" for the GNOME/KDE split.  The reson for that 
> "split" is that Right now The GTK Libs are STILL broken.  It takes a 

  Nope. Gtk works fine. Gnome can be a pain to compile.

> serius Haker to compile a GNOME desktop ( I can't do it and I have
> tryied ).  The KDE people were left with the choice of waiting a cople
> years before they culd get started or using what they had at the time.
> They chose the Later and Less than 2 years later KDE is ready to go
> gold.

  This is of course the argument for choosing Qt - it was the best
available at the time. And it's probably true; there were no other
high-quality free widget sets at the time.

> You seem to forget that KDE has not afected the development of GNOME
> In fact I think GNOME is farther along now because of the "KDE threat"
> than it wold be if KDE did not exist.

  If KDE were GPL'able then most people wouldn't be working on Gnome
and we'd have a unified desktop, as opposed to the current split
between two desktop environments.
 
> > So  I'm sorry but  no, they don't  help  Linux. They  hinder Linux, by
> > tapping in the free software movement without playing by the rules.
> > 
> > And BTW, if you consider  Qt to be a  "very powerful commercial tool",
> > you need to have a look at some  really serious commercial tools, such
> > as Ilog. Qt is a sad joke next to them.
> > 
> Yes ... and it's also dirt cheap at $ 1,500.  That is another point 
> you have missed.  Troll Tech will not change the QT License, at least
> not
> for the next 7 years or so.  Because they know that they can make more
> money at this game than they ever could going the proprietary route.
> The only danger is if someone in Redmond went shopping and came home
> with a Troll, then they made the Libs proprietary in an effort to stifle
> Linux.  This would send QT earnings through the floor and still not hurt
> us.  Why ?  At it's current rate of development, FreeQT can replace 
> QT in less than 2 years,  We can use whatever QT Libs are around until 
> then.  However it is my opinion that were QT to become proprietary 
> FreeQT would suddenly find a really deep pool of developers and be ready
> in
> half that time.
> >
> >   OG.
> 
> -- 
> 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]