[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:       1998-04-16 13:22:31
[Download RAW message or body]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> KDE may have all sorts of nice technical qualities, but as long as it
> depends on Qt and Qt remains non-free, its technical qualities make no
> difference.  If we cannot use a program because of its distribution
> terms, its technical characteristics don't make a difference.
>
This fact I understand and am infinitely grateful for.  Why ?
It means that there will be not 1 but 2 competing desktops on Linux 
systems.  It means that for the immediate future there is a standard
for ease of use and robustness that GNOME will be forced to match or
exceed to be taken seriously by all but the free software advocates.
It takes a lot to get competition going in a free software product,
because of the corporate nature of free software development, it
is common for a developer to look at a program that almost dose 
what he wants to build software for and just contribute code to that
project rather than start or continue his own.  
KDE vs GNOME however is religious rather than technical and as such
will remain a permanent rift.
>
> It's clear from what you wrote that you don't share my concern about
> freedom.  Given that, it is not surprising that you see no problem
> with using Qt.  Your view is nothing unusual; most computer users
> don't care about freedom, and as a result most of them are content to
> use Microsoft software.
>
My views on freedom are somewhat different and are outlined at the 
bottom of this message.  
Asking for money from each and every user of a program is not 
ethically wrong in my opinion.  This is much like a Toll bridge
or a bus.  No single user is willing to pay the full cost of 
operations simply to use this.  However not allowing users to seek 
there own fixes is a problem.  Limiting the right to redistribute 
is crucial to the financial success of simple well written end user 
software.  See below for why this matters.  I.e. You shouldn't need
a book or tech support for even a sophisticated Word Processor.
More importantly without the direct $ 10 per user sort of sales 
certain vital programs would never be written, for the simple 
reason that nobody wants it badly enough to fork over whatever a 
medium size custom project costs these days.  Why ?  There are 
only 3 reasons programers write software.
1 : It is useful to him.
2 : There is money to be made.
3 : To advance the position of something he dose care about.
The last reason is the only reason that serious GUI word processors
for Linux are actually starting to pop up.  Without M$ word as 
a constant reason for keeping Windows and the embarrassment of 
having Corel WordPerfect the best WP for Linux by such a wide
margin is just unbearable.
>
> Those of us who care about freedom are in a minority, but we will
> continue to advance the state of free operating systems; without your
> help, this will go slower, but we will still get there.
>
Isn't it nice to get help from even those who don't care ?  Free 
software for it's own sake hardly works.  How old is the hurd anyway ? 
>
> >    But you overlook that KDE is also existing
> >    thanks to Qt.
> 
> I don't believe that: I am sure you could have developed KDE in some
> other way if you had made the effort.  You could have developed a free
> toolkit that did what you needed.  It might have been somewhat more
> work, but the result would have been infinitely more useful to the
> free software community.
>
The key term is EFFORT.  KDE reached BETA 1 in 12 months.  It is now at
the "finishing touches" stage and could go to version 1.0 in a few
weeks.
What would we have if the developers had started by writing a new
toolkit
or improving an existing free one to the point where it could manage
this
task ?  KDE would be further behind than GNOME is now.  Why ?  Most of 
the programers in Gnome are there because of the anty KDE sentiment.
Unix veterans don't care about a desktop for themselves but the children 
who wrote KDE grew up with Windows.  
The truth is that if KDE had started as the GNOME project ( with the 
same tools and priorities ).  It would not today be as good as GNOME is
today and GNOME may not exist.  
What about free software ?  Well I chose Linux for the same reason I
chose OS/2 years ago.  It is the best OS I tested at the time.  The
fact that it's price is within my grasp and the source code is available
is cool too but in reality when I download a Linux distribution the only 
source code I get is the Kernel, and only because it is needed for so
many tasks.
>
> I mean "infinitely" literally.  If you had developed KDE using a free
> toolkit, its usefulness would have been greater than zero.  Right now,
> the usefulness of KDE to free operating systems is zero, and
> statements that Qt is free, or just as good as free, do harm.
>
I have looked at the situation with QTs License and the fact is that 
Any modification to it that would suite you would simply mean Troll
Tech stops making money.  They would not improve the quality of QT
( How many patches have been submitted anyway ? ).  They would not
increase the ability of teem KDE to use it ( except in the eyes of the 
FSF ).  All it would do is promote the development of more closed
software by dropping the effective price of QT to those developers.
I am sorry but This doesn't look like an improvement to me.
>
> >  btw: There was a mail some days ago which claimed to come from "Richard
> >  Stallman", too. In this mail the author claimed that writing non-GPLed
> >  software is "unethical" and that it was good if people who do so run
> >  into trouble.
> 
> The message you are talking about was from me, but that is not quite
> what it said.  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html has a
> description of my views on the matter, for whoever may be interested.
> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html for the definition
> of free software and how that relates to GPL-covered software.
>
Alzsimers ?  That is exactly what the message said actually ( I'll quote
it below )
> 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.
RMS : Mon, 13 Apr 1998 11:58:36 -0600

You live in America.  America has been free for so long most Americans
don't even understand the deference between being free and being 
bound.  Example ; Political leaders have been saying for centuries how
freedom of a nation or an individual come from political systems that 
do not permit abuse by others.  Religious leaders have been saying that 
freedom is within your own mind.

The truth is however that Freedom is financial.  It exists as a function
of wealth.  You forinstance have considerably more freedom than most
people because you can travel to literally anywhere on earth at your own 
expense or higher a legal teem to keep you out of prison when charges
are manufactured.

How dose this apply to free software ?  Price freedom is as important if 
not more important than the freedom to modify source code.  Why ?  the
truth is that the only way to make a lot of money off a well written and 
simple GPLd program is to sell it for a vast amount of money to each
purchaser and hope that they will hurd it as a competitive advantage 
for long enough for you to make your fortune.

So who cares about weather programing companies and programers make 
money ?  You do.  Indirectly of course.  Currently software development
in north America offers some of the highest entry level remunerations. 
This is the only reason so many people take programing courses in 
school and bang on code at home ( Though still not enough since
programers
do not have a cool image :).  Yes it is possible to make money doing 
free software.  However this is only in specific cases and for limited
uses.  There isn't enough money made on Linux to give everyone who 
contributes code to a major distribution $30K per year or more.
So what would be the result of everybody going GPL ?  In the short term
it would simply mean a major economic downturn for America ( how much
Software dose the US export anyway ? ).  In the long term however
software would become very much like modern poetry.  Sure there are 
millions of poets around, and there is some moving and/or entertaining
poetry being written.  There is even some poetry that teaches a valuable
lesson.  However you could spend a year searching through the pile of
pointless drivel to find this.  Why ?  There is little money to be made
in poetry so most of the good poets aren't even doing poetry.  This
is the same as how in an all GPL world after a while the pool of 
programers would largely dry up.

My ideal society is then one where GPLd alternatives exist for those
want them, and commercial alternatives for those who will never trust
or understand the GPL ( or simply want to make money ).  The change 
that is needed is entirely technical however.  I want free OSs and
software to compete with commercial offerings at all levels from the
Enterprise server and industrial super computer all the way down to
the PDA.  ( did I see Linux for the Pilot somewhere ? ).

As long as both exist life will continue to improve for the vast
majority of people who do not program.  Very few things <IMHO> 
qualify to be an end in themselves.  Increased knowledge, an improved 
quality of life and Salvation are the 3 I care about.

-- 
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]