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

List:       userlinux-discuss
Subject:    Re: [Discuss] ISV's and Licensing
From:       "Aaron J. Seigo" <aseigo () olympusproject ! org>
Date:       2003-12-12 4:43:37
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

god i don't want to wade into this thread, so i'll keep it brief:

On Thursday 11 December 2003 07:40, Richard McGrath wrote:
> I think Bruce, like a allot of people, understand that the thrust of
> this project is to provide a free distribution, lowering the barriers
> for companies to come in a provide support. 

Qt does not raise the barrier to providing support as you and Bruce are 
describing it. The rest of the argument along this line is specious.

> from many angles and have not simply gone in circles.  They do, however,
> come back to the central point of the Qt license taking away peoples
> freedom to do with it what they will.

And those people have Gtk+ if they wish to trade time and quality for money. 
You do realize that every other successful OS platform out there has multiple 
toolkits to choose from? And that there are both expensive, reasonably priced 
and inexpensive/free options on those successful platforms? These are the 
same platforms that own 98% of the desktop market. Saying that the key to 
User Linux usurping their position is saving some developers a few bucks 
reflects a strong ignorance of the real issues holding Linux back from the 
desktop which include:

 o affordable, reliable and trusted corporate support
 o applications
 o time (as in, it hasn't had enough time to go through the market cycles yet)

It isn't a free-as-in-beer toolkit. Otherwise UNIX would be at the head of the 
class, not trying to break on through in the year 2003 since we've had 
free-as-in-beer toolkits for a long time now.

> I know I don't want to download UserLinux and know that I have to, for
> example, remove bits (Qt) and put other bits in just so that it could be
> used for use as a commercial development platform based on 100% free
> software.

Well, you wouldn't have to remove bits. You would just use other bits. I'm not 
sure what part of this is escaping you; perhaps you don't possess the 
required knowledge to be commenting on this aspect of things.

> Since I imagine this is not the first list to go through the hoops in
> regards to the Qt license issue, why has there never been a project to
> remove this last thorn in the side of an otherwise fantastic toolkit?

There was. It was called Harmony. It stopped once Qt became Free Software.

> This is fine *if* that is what you want.  I don't think that is what
> UserLinux is about.  It is about having a product that made up *only* of
> 100% free software, 

Qt and KDE are 100% Free Software. if this isn't good enough for you, then 
Linux certainly isn't where you want to be. the Linux kernel, you see, is 
also GPL, as are many of the other components. you can't even buy the right 
to create binary Linux kernel modules, you have to "luck" into a loophole in 
the licensing. so instead of Linux, may I suggest FreeBSD for you instead? 
it's a really great OS.

> and allowing service companies to compete with one 
> another for providing support and other value-added services (like
> providing the effort for putting Qt in, and supporting it, if companies
> are willing to pay for it).

and by removing Qt and KDE from the actual system you are forcing one of two 
situations:

1. A fork.
2. A severe handicap on those companies you purportedly would like to be free 
to offer Qt/KDE services.

Trust me, #2 won't be tolerated.

- -- 
Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/2Ud61rcusafx20MRAh6uAKCmR2rvhxVCGR8BnbIITWPD+lHjAQCfVYDk
JamDVV7hRsHiK4dsCDLEMTY=
=IVzZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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