In general, it is a good thing to make a free replacement for a
non-free program.  This applies to the Unix kernel (replaced by Linux)
and PCC (replaced by GCC) and the Bourne Shell (replace by the Bourne
Again Shell), and the whole Unix system which has been replaced by the
GNU/Linux system(*).  It applies to Qt as well.

Writing non-free software is not an ethically legitimate activity, so
if people who do this run into trouble, that's good!  All businesses
based on non-free software ought to fail, and the sooner the better.

So, should a free replacement for Qt be released under the GNU GPL, or
under the GNU LGPL?  That is a question of strategy.  Sometimes it is
better strategy to release a library under the GNU GPL, so that only
free programs can use it.  Sometimes it is better to release a library
under the GNU LGPL, so that proprietary programs can use it.

The GPL is better when the library does something not generally
available.  By limiting the use of that library to free software, we
give other free software developers an advantage over proprietary
software developers.  Since the world is set up to give so many
advantages and encouragements to proprietary software developers, we
should not miss the chance to give oter free software developers a few
advantages of their own.

In the case of a free replacement for Qt, there IS something similar
available: Qt itself.  If we restricted this replacement to free
applications only, proprietary application developers would just use
Qt instead.  There would be no benefit in using the GPL, so I would
choose the LGPL.

Please note that "commercial" and "non-free" are not the same.  They
deal with different questions.  Free software is a matter of freedom
for the users--it is not a question of price, and not a question of
whether a business is based on the software.  Non-free software is a
bad thing, but commercial software can be a good thing if it is free
software.  GNU Ada is a good example of commercial free software,
because there is a company whose sole business is supporting GNU Ada.
They develop and support free software, and make a living doing it.
That is a good thing.

I recently saw a message talking about a free version of Qt, released
(it says) with the cooperation of Troll Tech.  If this is really true,
it would change the ethical situation completely.  If Qt becomes
commercial free software, under terms compatible with the GNU GPL, we
will no longer need a replacement for it.  If Troll Tech becomes a
free software company, we should wish them success.

But I would not tell people to rejoice just yet, because I am not sure
that the people who announced this are using the term "free" in the
same way we use it in GNU.  I would like to find out more about what
is happening.

In a situation like this, the details make all the difference.
Perhaps this version is not free software, as we use the term in GNU,
or perhaps it is.  That depends on the precise distribution terms used
for it.  So I would like to see them, and other relevant details.

Can anyone email me these details?  I am no longer an Internet user,
so I cannot access a URL; I do not have MIME capability.  But if you
stick a web page right in the text of a message, I can read it.


(*) See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html.