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!
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.
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
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
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...
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.