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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: [kde] Re: The KDE Free Qt Foundation
From:       Kevin Forge <forgeltd () usa ! net>
Date:       1998-04-10 13:32:28
[Download RAW message or body]

Fester Zigterman wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, Kevin Forge wrote:
> 
> [..]
> >Reasonable up to this point.
> >>
> >> * a QT licence for KDE cheap and share ware.
> >>       - Not Availlable. As a result KDE apps in this category will not be
> >>      produced.  Maybe TT can be convinced to release _yet_ another licence
> >>     to cover this.
> >>
> >Let me explain something.  Whenever you have a multitired Licensing scheme
> >YOU as the distributor must police it.
> >OK : Let's say they have a shareware license,  Then Macafee, PKWare, ID
> >and several other industry giants don't pay.  Or lets say they have a
> 
> Lets say they don't pay anyway. THEN what ? ...
>
Then they have committed a major and clearly illegal offense and Troll 
Tech can take them to  Civil court where where they can sue for
damages.  
This means that when Troll has won the case The Looser may be ordered to 
pay various damages + court costs ( inclusive of accommodations for 
witnesses ) + punitive damages ... This last one is usually based on the
wealth of the defendant so Microsoft might be asked to pay 1/2 Billion
or 
so for a single pirated copy of QT.  Isn't that cool ?
With one indiscreation Someone big ( M$, Aple, IBM etc... ) culd be
asked
to pay the Trolls so much money that they culd all retier and BSD QT
>
> >cheapware license for Software under $ 15 ( an arbitrary figure )
> >Then even Microsoft can slip through with MSplus and IE4 pricing sheams.
> >Or let's say they charge less for small companies.  Are you going to
> >conduct free audits on everybody that uses QT ?  Worse yet in countries
> >where small companies ( under $ 100,000 annual income ) slip throughcracks
> >in the tax scheme.
> >Nope, making the distinction GPL or pay makes it nice and simple.  All
> >you need is to see a copy of the software to know if its GPL or not.
> >Dose it have Sources ?  Dose the licens say GPL ?
> >Like I said ... You want Troll to make QT into GPLd donate ware, which
> >is software you can use and pay the license out of the goodness of your
> >heart ( all the above schemes would mean this ).  In which case why
> >doesn't the small shareware author and the Cheapware producer do this ?
> >Because they would starve on such a project.
> 
> So. It is nice and simple. I realize that creating a shareware licence isn't
> what TT is waiting for. I also realize that no shareware licence means no KDE
> shareware apps. Can we live without it?
> I don't see you a solution to this problem.
>
There is to my knowledge very little in the way of successful Linux
ShareWare 
( although somebody at Byte thinks Linux itself is shareware ).  Only 
StarOffice comes to mind.  What people tend not to get is that most
shareware
users never pay the license so for a shareware app to make money it must
beat
the competition by an order of magnitude.  I.e. Macafee and Doom were
way ahead
of anything else at the time, so they made a profit.  Most shareware
programs
however are second rate and as such make no money at all.  In other
words
this middle ground you are talking about is for apps that for the most
part
we can live without.  Also you don't owe a commercial license fee until
you
actually decide to un GPL this application and sell it without sources.
So you as a programer can decide weather or not it's going to cut it in
the
marketplace.
>
> Or do you mean that KDE shareware should actually be free software with a
> "donation encouragement" ? Maybe it will work.
> 
> >Most of these nifty things that KDE apps can do with each other could not
> >be done on a Linux desktop before KDE was written ( at least not with
> >any large body of applications ).  So this functionality is only available
> >for GPLd apps, and Software that will bring in over $ 2,000.
> >too bad,  Would you rather not have it at all ?
> 
> Sure I would have it ! But i am trying to find some solutions to problems
> that may prevent KDE from becoming a standard desktop.
> "Too bad" isn't acceptable in this context.
> Fact is that writing a comm. KDE app requires QT, thus $1500 commercial fee. No
> alternative lib does the job. No choice. I don't say I want the libs to be free
> for comm. exploitation. Just to have an option.
> About the $2000, do you mean KDE fees, or QT fees?
>
No it means QT Feas plus the cost of a minimal PC for programing. 
>
> >> We need  to make basic KDE functions availlable in a non-QT KDE lib,
> >> so it can be used with GTK and still conform to KDE config and colors.
> >>
> >I promise not to repeat this any more, but.this is being addressed and
> >while GTK apps won't necessarily be Kapps.  They will use the same
> >protocols and whatever for important things ( like color scheme
> >drag and drop, etc... )
> 
> I mean the other way around. Let KDE offer, regardless of other libs, a basic
> lib that offers the infirmation so that you could also use mo/lesstif, Xt and
> Xaw or whatever and still use color schemes and drag&drop.
>
Do you know what a defacto standard is ?  It's whatever hit's the market
and 
spreads first.  
>
> And about the DND, i heard that while KDE uses Kdnd, GTK uses
> Xe or something.
> What about that ?
>
It's like the scenario with the houses I already mentioned.  KDE
uses one kind of DND standard ( borrowed from Motif I think ... The
experts can explain better ) and GTK disided to use another.  What
is important to note is that KDE had it's DND written, buried in 
the code and WORKING before GTK got around to deciding what to use.
They have chosen to fragment on this point.  However they are 
expanding and Last I herd GTK stuff was gona somehow support 3 types
of DND simultaneously, including the plain DND used by KDE.
> 
> Anyway, I must say that I like the GTK looks rather well, after looking at
> testgtk in GTK 0.99. I wish our KDE Tablistbox worked that smooth.
> And the key support is great !
> On the other hand, KDE/QT is WAY easier programming. And comparable
> behaviour IS programmable. We only have to do it.
>
Like I said ... people want a winner and looser when money is an issue.
Since neither GNOME or KDE is going to be making much money ( Though
Technically RedHat is an investor in GNOME with a clear financial goal
).
The 2 desktops will work together just like the old TabWorks and 
program manager for Win3.11 
I.e. You can exchange parts or use both together and still not loose
more than RAM.
>
> Fester
> 
> PS: its great having a kde-licence list isnt it? :)
>
Then why won't you post to it ?
-- 
A computer without Windows 95 and Internet Explorer is like 
a piece of chocolate cake without Catsup and Mustard.

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