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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: GPL Restrictions
From:       Alan Cox <alan () cymru ! net>
Date:       1998-08-25 21:07:28
[Download RAW message or body]

> into something as basic as this desktop strikes me as gatekeeping, of which 
> I am well familiar from the MS-DOS world.  Applications can be distributed

Thats probably a lot of the anti-KDE argument in one line (note though any
fingers would be pointed at Qt not KDE itself here)

> under a variety of licensing arrangements, but the tools should be LGPL.  

The Gnome libraries are LGPL. I think your actual argument is in many ways
wrong. Software licensing is a matter for the author. The decision that
is yours is if you accept their license or go elsewhere.

> At the same time, what I've heard from FSF about GNOME (admittedly from the 
> advocacy ngs) is reactionary.  The impression left on me is that the GNOME 

Word of warning. Advocacy newsgroups are pointless. Both Martin Konold and
Miguel de Icaza are sane friendly people. The mob dont speak for either
side any more than comp.os.linux.advocacy is the voice of Linus.

> project consisted of mostly foot-dragging by those not convinced a graphical
> environment was necessary at all, until KDE including the QT lib.  Now there

Thats rather funny. There is no doubt KDE created Gnome (Miguel actually
went to RMS going 'there is this wonderful desktop' and Gnome started
because of the license issues/gatekeeping). Similarly the Rasterman wrote
'E' (aka Enlightment) which isnt the most text oriented window manager
in the world.

> juvenile behavior on either side.  Worse, if I write an application and 
> charge a few bucks for it, what risk do I run that FSF members become 
> offended, organize a project, and reverse engineer my application?  

If your application is useful then someone may well write a free clone
of it. Thats their legal right. Linux is very much a Unix clone, DOS was
a CP/M rip off and so on...

The only obvious reason I can imagine for someone cloning an application
is because its too expensive/doesnt do what they want. Finding a pile of
people to clone an app none of them wanted would be hard.

> If FSF will undermine QT by duping the API in an allegedly noble cause, 

The Gnome project isnt involved in duplicating the Qt API at all. Thats
the Harmony project working to write an LGPL Qt clone. As is also their
right and a second solution to any gate keeping 

> are they free to undermine others' efforts when the cause isn't so noble, 
> for strictly political reasons?

The goal of KDE is a desktop environment according to their ethical values
The goal of the Gnome project is a desktop environment according to their
ethical values
The goal of your software is to make a bit of money according to your
ethical values
Troll Tech license Qt in accordance with their beliefs too

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