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

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: LICENSE issues summary
From:       Marco Eccettuato <me () italnet ! it>
Date:       1998-10-10 19:12:50
[Download RAW message or body]

Stephan Kulow wrote:
> 
> Marco Eccettuato wrote:
> >
> > I read all the messages about the KDE license problem.
> >
> > All that I read can be summarized as follows, leaving out all the
> > complex technicalities, and trying to make an high-level abstract:
> >
> > [1] KDE has a licensing problem. This is unquestionable, as proves
> >     this recurrent discussion, that doesn't arise for other programs.
> > [2] Other programs had the same problem, but addressed it. Some
> >     resolved it, others didn't resolve it. But the related issues are
> >     over, since they recognized the problem, and resolved it someway.
                                                     ^^^^^^^^
                                                     addressed

> > [3] KDE has never even addressed the licensing problem. They just say
> >     that there's no problem. This would mean that all the others are
> >     dishonest or stupid, continuing discussion on a non-existing issue.
Why does nobody at KDE answer the issue in [3], which is central and was
raised, in various forms, many many times, by people willing not to hurt
anyone, but rather to better understand their reasons?

> > [4] RedHat and Debian don't include KDE for licensing reasons. They are
> >     the two main Linux distributions, the ones that provide the biggest
> >     effort and the best support for their customers. The mainstream
> >     success of Linux and free software depends heavily on them.
> I would like to note, that neither would include KDE in their
> distribution
> if KDE would change the license. For debian it would appear in the
> contrib
> section, which is _not_ part of the Debian distribution.
Can you tell it for sure? Even if KDE would prove itself better, or simply
more requested than other GUI's as GNOME? If RedHat or Debian customers
asked the maintainers of the distributions for a good (which KDE indeed is)
and free program, wouldn't they include it? I don't think so. The problem
is, KDE isn't yet free, at least not in the complete, unambiguous sense which
all we long-time Linux-ers are used to. The incredible subtilities to which
KDE-ers appeal, even that someone demonstrates they're wrong (on the exception
about core system components, such as X11, or saying that ls "includes" libc,
and read other examples in the thread) tell the true story. Nobody else does it.
It is also to be noted that, if this issue continues to remain unaddressed
for a long time on, other GUI's will acquire an unfair advantage over KDE,
caused by "legal" and "moral" reasons, not coding skills, effectiveness, etc.
I think it is very very sad that one good program as KDE has to be dropped,
how I also have done, when I was beware of the licensing issues, by many users.
I am ready to reinstall it at any moment, when and if the issue goes over.
What I would like to do, is to choose between really free GUI's which is better.

> > [5] Other beatiful and useful GUI's, as GNOME, are emerging. They don't
> >     have licensing problems. They are distributed, and we can expect
> >     that they'll be supported by the main distributions. They don't
> >     cause unnecessary legal problems or moral concerns to anynone.
> >
> > My personal contribution to the issue:
> >
> > I installed and used KDE 1.0 for about a month. It seemed very well
> > maintained, and pretty usable. I didn't like too much its Windows-like
> > look and feel (even the non-Windows (!) one is too Windows-like!), but
> > all in all, it was a good GUI to use with my Linux desktop.
> >
> > Two weeks ago, I reinstalled my RedHat Linux 5.1 system. Now I use GNOME.
> > I find it better than KDE (the licensing issue has nothing to do). It has
> > some nice feature, such as letting you use any window manager you like,
> > instead of imposing you one of its own. There are so many nice wm's!. It
> Yeah - I use fvwm95 with KDE apps and I have no problem with this. You
> can
> make "do not impose you one of its own" to "not having an own" very
> easily.
You're right.

> > has a better look & feel that looks something new and different. After all,
> > I use Linux because I like very much UNIX and heartly hate Windows95: why
> > should I ever see its look & feel? I don't know. And I think, we all don't
> > want to hear Windows' people say: "Look! It seems Windows95!" but we would
> > like to hear them say: "Look! It's better than Windows95!" since we know
> > that UNIX (Linux, FreeBSD, and even AIX, Solaris, etc) is better than it.
> It is? Then why does it matter how it looks like?
You're wrong. We all know that appearence is fundamental to the success of a
product. It is a bit sad, but the world goes this way. If we hope that the M$
empire will not one day rule all the IT world, than a beautiful, useful, new
and different look and feel for UNIX is necessary. But the last years' trend
was to copy the Windows95 l&f more or less (fvwm95, AnotherLevel, and so on).
This is also a criticism direct to distributions' (e.g. RedHat) maintainers.

Nobody hates KDE (very good GUI) or KDE people (very skilled programmers),
despite what they effectively seem to think.
Many want to use really, undoubt free software, and not use software that
may include really free software of somebody else, without being free itself.

> Greetings, Stephan
> 
> --
> NOTE: condom may only be used with a hard disk. condom will
> terminate abnormally with exit code -1 if used with a floppy
> disk (see DIAGNOSTICS below).
Uhm... I must have seen something very similar in the Jargon file.


DISCLAIMER

My opinions are simply those of one Linux user and developer.
I have nothing to do with RedHat, Debian, KDE, GNOME.


Greetings,
						Marco

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