Slashdot Mirror
KDevelop 1.2 is out
As the title says - KDevelop 1.2 is out. From the announcement: This version contains many new translations, support for GNOME application development, several improvements in the doc browser and integrated debugger and many bugfixes. You might want to check also the KDE Development Kit if you're using C/C++ (and QT Libs) to write KDE Applications. Great work guys!
I was also speculating why it exists.
It exists because people want it. There are people unlike ourselves who may want to develop software with the minimum of fuss and bother. This will suit them. It's like driving a car, you just get in the thing and put your foot down. Do you care what makes it work underneath? I sure don't, unless somethings wrong with it I just use it. This is the same principle.
Now weary traveller, rest your head. For just like me, you're utterly dead.
For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
Aha! The key phrase here is clearly any associated interface definition files .
The way I read it, that applies to headers associated with "all modules it contains", where "it" is the GPL code. And, I wouldn't say that Qt is a module of KDevelop at all.
Secondly, reading further down the paragraph, the GPL blows away the argument further:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
KDE is the default desktop of SuSE, Caldera, and Mandrake, of distributions off of the top of my head. It also is included with Red Hat, and Slackware. Thus Qt is normally distributed with the operating system. And, Qt itself does not accompany the executible (since it's dynamically linked), so the special exception applies.
Thirdly, you mention that the GPL does not prohibit use of the program. Distributing a tarball of Qt-using GPL code does not violate the GPL. Distributiong a dynamically linked binary of Qt-using GPL code does not violate the GPL. It's just that distributing such things is, in essense, distributing a kit for violating the GPL.
So what if a staticly linked version of KDevelop would break the GPL when distributed? In the grand tradition of computing, the answer is "Don't do that!"
Regardless of distro, I always remove K* and qt* from it right away.
As I recall, it's something like $1550 per developer to develop closed source or commercial applications using the QT libs. That's a showstopper here.
Isn't gnome and glibc LGPL? that obviates the issue. If only there were some way to hack all the various C++/C libraries out there into something to replace Qt.
For a lot less than $1550 you can get a new copie of Win2K and VisualC++ pro, last time I checked pricewatch.
Otherwise, I'd be using KDevelop tomorrow...but nooooooooooo......
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
In my opinion, the "it" refers to the executable work, and I would definitely consider Qt to be a module of KDevelop.
--
bgphints - internet routing news, hints and ti
As a reminder, the GPL explicitly states that you can use the software freely WITHOUT agreeing to the license. However, if you would like to distribute it, you must agree to the license, or you may not.
This is obvious, because copyright law DOES NOT give you the right to prevent people from using your works, only from distributing them. If I write a book, I can put a license that say only people with a name beginning with a vowel may read this book, but I would NOT be able to legally enforce this. I could refuse to sell it to them, and refuse to allow anyone else to sell it to them, and make everyone agree to keep it from them. However, if someone gets it, I can't do ANYTHING to them, however, I can sue the person who provided it to them for copyright infringement.
Why is this? Copyright means that nobody can copy or distribute something other than me. I can sell my copyright (someone else can then have those rights), I can also license it out. A license is an agreement to do something. The GPL is a license that allows you to distribute the copyrighted work and derivatives under certain circumstances.
As a USER, I can certainly combine any amounts of software however I want. Indeed, if my friend buys software that I can't buy and gives it to me, there is NOTHING that anybody can do to me. They can go after my friend if he agreed to not give it to me, but otherwise, they can do nothing.
The KDE/QPL thing is quite silly. KDE developers are free to develop their stuff however they want. Additionally, they can distribute it however they want. The only issue became whether you could distribute the combined issue. KDE clearly wants you to be able to, Trolls clearly wants you to be able to. What is the problem? If you are distributing the combination and are concerned, I suggest writing a letter to both organizations requesting permission. I'm certain that you will get it, and then you can distribute.
There was a statement somewhere in this mess claiming that they don't buy the "you can have it on your disk without permission" arguement... well, you can. You have the right to use this software. If you have questions regarding your right to distribute, contact the copyright owners requesting it. Request the ability to include their permission with your copies for everyone who receives it through you to have that explicit permission.
If you would like your version of KDE under the FSF's suggested version of the GPL (which is the GPL's code with a statement giving permission to distribute with QT or other QPL'd software), I bet that the KDE people would license your version under that agreement. In that scenario, that you would have a completely legal license to distribute it. In that scenario, offer Debian a copy of your licensed KDE, which is perfectly legal with no question.
Alex
Oh nice I thought, KDevelop supports GNOME, now it might become interesting to use it. All that support seems to mean is this gnome.tar.gz file in the templates directory containing much of the gnome-hello package.
I wouldn't call that GNOME support, since this doesn't seem any more helpful than just giving people an editor and the gnome-hello package and have them go from there.
I really wish they had put in some more effort into this before announcing they support gnome. like this it looks more like they threw something together so they could boast about it than actually being committed to providing the best solution for GNOME development.
For "code insight", you could try KDE Studio, although that requires KDE2 and isn't quite as stable.
--
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
I do use Kdevelop to code my End-of-studies project.
:)), but because it is a good way to quickly build a friendly user interface and even any C++ application. Kdevelop builds itself a very good base to your project, with all the autoconf / automake stuff, very handly. Finding errors at compile time just by clicking on the faulty line and a few others things are really great in Kdevelop. (Please do not answer that Emacs does it).
I use it not really because I like KDE (and, I even used to _hate_ KDE, but I'm getting older and wiser
And my developing environment is Kdevelop + AfterStep 1.0.
And.... If you do not like KDE, Kdevelop 1.2 supports GNOME !
Fetchez la vache !
Uh oh. Sometimes ago, Debian's specialist is pointless arguing found out that the GPL was incompatible with Qt Free Edition License of the 1.X branch of Qt. They say that prevent them from distributing KDE, but that it prevent noone from using it. The explanation is (or was?) somewhere on Debian's site.
Aware of the problem, TrollTech's guys have decided to publish their next release under an Open Source License, which was the QPL. This was meant to suppress incompatibility problem with the GPL, for example. So the QPL must be considered compatible with the GPL, else the Trolls would have totally miss the point.
And furthermore, this so-called incompatibility is workable around by giving the permission of linking with Qt one's GPLed project. It was so obvious for KDE coders that their code is linkable against Qt that this permission was given implicitely, rather than explicitely. Thus Debian's arguing. If that really bug you to not have an explicit permission, edit the copyright notice of the program to add it. No one will hurt you to do so if it stays on your disk, and everyone will be happy.
sigmentation fault
So, why flame KDevelop? It won't prevent you to work as you like, and it will surely won't prevent you from using gcc/gmake/bash/grep
KDevelop seems like a nice application very similar to VC++. It still leaves the original question of how many UNIX developers are using it for development. I would guess that outside of KDE application developers, very few. UNIX developers tend to be very stubborn about what tools they use. Usually a general unhapiness with other OSs led them to the cult of UNIX, so I don't think it's likely they would use such a Windows like tool for development. Personally I'm a emacs/vi/xterm/blackbox guy, for what it's worth.
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
Can you actually point to a phrase in the GPL that could prohibit an end user from dynamically linking (via ld.so or some other mechanism) a GPL app to a QPL library?
Indeed, the GPL does not prohibit use, but it does prohibit distribution if the license terms are not met (in this case distribution of modified versions, which is disallowed by the QPL). Please take a look at section 3:
Certainly, shared libraries fall under that clause.
--
bgphints - internet routing news, hints and ti
What? KDE looks like Microsoft Software? You mean it has a taskbar? Icons? Menu bars? Toolbars? Pushbuttons? Elements which are part of nearly every desktop environment? Grow up!
Please remember that Gnome can be configured to look like Microsoft Windows as well.
I've said this here a thousand times. If you come from CDE you think that KDE is a lot like CDE. If you come from windows, it feels like windows. That tells me that the KDE folks have done their job -- makeing the user feel at home.
-- Thrakkerzog
I'll loudly second this. I'll let others argue with the guy above as to whether professionals should use it, but as somebody who can read C/C++ but had never really written any, who can tweak a Makefile but could never write one by hand, Qt, kdelibs and KDevelop have been a blessing.
People can complain that I'm doing the things the "wrong" way, but the fact is that I've written some apps which I needed and which enable me to use Linux that much more of the time. Those tools allow me to give something back and to provide software that hundreds of other people apparently found useful as well.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I played around with KDevelop 1.1 and had somegood experiences. But I also had one *very* frustrating experience:
I set up a widget using the widget-editor (or whatever i's called) and added a few components. Lateron I decided to add more and just did it by hand. Then I started coding some function - unfortunately I was stupid enough to add all those functions into the widget_data file. I know, stupid. Shouldn't have done it.
But anyway, so later I have about 5000 lines of code (again, I _know_ it was stupid to put everything in one file - but I'm still learning), and I want to check out the widgets again and open the wdiget-editor. I don't make any changes. But when I close the editor, it overrides the changes I made by hand earlier and overrides the file widget_data. All my code is lost. I'm pissed.
I posted this story into a NG and was (of coruse) laughed at for putting all the code into one file, but alsosomebody from the Kdevelop-team mentioned that this was behaviour was pointed out somewhere.
But IMHO it needs to be pointed out more clearly.
Another feature I'm *really* missing is automatic bracket-checking, as I'm used to from emacs or vim. In Kdevelop you can enable "auto brackets" or something like that, but this just creates the closing bracket whenever you open one. What I want is *checking* - so that it verifies if the bracket is in place and which one it closes.
Also, I wish the indention would work as in xemacs, automatically verifying where it's supposed to indent to - this way you can find lots of parsing-errors.
What I really like about Kdevelop is the creation of makefiles and configure scripts. Since I'm new to programming KDE/Qt, and am not too makefile-savvy, I really appreciate this.
I'm not sure if they work 100%, though. I tried to port my (incomplete) app to another machine that has KDE and Qt libraries installed, and the configure script creates a Makefile, but with the wrong includes (ie the include paths as they are on my local machine).
Anyway, I just downloaded and installed Kdevelop 1.2 and I can't really tell a big difference after fiddling around for 10 minutes. It nicely detected my last opened project and all looks just like the 1.1 version.
All in all, I think it's a great product, which could be improved with the, IMHO, essential features mentioned above.
Just my $.02
-Jan
-- "Tradition is the illusion of permanence."
IMHO KDE is the way of the future for the Linux desktop. It combines elegence and style with usability, and has got a great team of developers who understand what it takes to make Linux successful - a user interface that any Windows user would feel at home with.
The fact of the matter is that 99% of computer users are familiar with the concepts and ideas of the Windows desktop, and the last thing they want to learn is how to use a different GUI. So by making a Linux desktop that is just like the Windows one, the KDE team is doing more for the success of Linux than pracically any other project on the market, with the possible exception of the Wine project.
What Linux needs is to be more like Windows from the perspective of the average user. They don't want to know about the workings of the kernel and filesystem to be able to use an operating system, they simply want the superb ease of use that Windows has delivered to so many people, and KDE looks set to deliver as well. In many ways Linux needs to take a leaf out of Microsoft's book - the complexity of the OS needs to be well hidden from the average user, and a common theme needs to prevail across applications.
Anyway, once again, well done to KDE for working towards the success of Linux!
Or did the kdevelop authors put in an exception clause which they did not document on their web page?
--
bgphints - internet routing news, hints and ti
To me, it's obvious how striking a resemblence KDE bears to M$'s software (in looks anyway) - go ahead, flame! At my work we use Solaris, gmake, gcc, the sun compiler, emacs, tcsh, windowmaker, twm - standard UNIX things.. this is the way development under UNIX has happened and (should?) happen. Question: Who here is using KDevelop at work for production?
-- jaf
this is the way development under UNIX has happened and (should?) happen.
I don't think forcing people to develop software in a particular way is good for open source. If someone wishes to use a devlopment environment like KDevelop, who are we to say they shouldn't? It's not something I would currently use, but that doesn't mean others shouldn't.
I'm curious why you think forcing an environment on someone is a good idea. Isn't that what Microsoft have done, and what half of the open source community is actively fighting against?
Now weary traveller, rest your head. For just like me, you're utterly dead.