Slashback: Moolah, Visuals, Geosynchrony

Thanks to all of the fine folks who contributed these updates, you are in for another illuminating, invigorating, inspiring round of fruity nuggets picked from the tree of wisdom, irradiated, waxed, polished, chilled, packaged and shipped (metaphorically) to your browser. Swallow two of these a week, call if symptoms recur.

Who needs an atmosphere? Xibalba writes "As a follow up story to the orbiting Web server, NASA already has an ftp server installed on UoSat-12 and has been sucessfully transferring images for the past week." Soon there should be no shortage of IP-addressable tin cans floating around space.

World domination, increment 00000003707391: xaniamud writes "NVidia have released version 0.93 of their OpenGL XFree86 drivers, check it out." Hopefully, nVidia is interested enough in selling video cards to the faithful to wipe it's nose clean of GPL violations, too.

This time, let's help DivX succeed ... Mike Hicks writes "An update to a previous story. FlashingYellow has combined with OpenCodex, and they now have a $10,000 prize along with an iMac DV for the first individual or group to produce an open source DivX ;-) plugin for Quicktime." Added to which, I will supply the second individual or group with a letterboxed DVD of Carlito's Way, Heat or The Godfather.

You may already be a winner! You may recall that Dr. Günter Bechly recently offered a $3000 incentive to the developers of KDE if the license under which KDE is released were amended such that it could be distributed with Debian's main (free) distribution.

Dr. Bechly has now withdrawn the offer, for the reasons he outlines below. He writes:

"Hello, I just wanted to let everybody know that KDE did not bother to send an official answer to my offer of a donation of $3000 in case that they fix their licence problems that currently prohibits an inclusion of KDE in Debian GNU/Linux. Just two people of the KDE camp answered at all, and both basically said that the licence change is impossible to do since there is too much code of third parties (including those who sent patches) involved who can hardly be traced. This is quite interesting, since in the past most KDE representatives claimed that the licence issue is moot since the requested exception clause in the licence is implicitly given due to the fact that the KDE programmers coded KDE-software for the QT-toolkit. Now they admit that they use a lot of GPL'ed code of non-KDE programmers which have never given such an implicit permission to link their GPL'ed code to QPL'ed libraries.

Just as a reminder: The issue is not how to use KDE with Debian (e.g. by adding the link site to apt-sources), but how to legally include KDE as free software in Debian main. The issue is also neither that KDE is indeed free software nor that QT is indeed free software, but the issue is that the two involved free licences (GPL versus QPL) are mutually incompatible, which makes any distribution of binaries of GPL'ed software that is linked to QT simply illegal! The KDE project obviously does not care at all that it violates the GPL licence of other peoples code. This is not only rude behaviour but simply unacceptable. I hoped that my offer would help to solve the problem, but the reaction or rather the non-reaction of KDE shows that this attempt failed, just like any other attempts to solve this issue before. Apparently KDE and the distributions that include KDE are relying on the mean consideration that private authors of free software will not take the finacial risk to sue them for their licence violation. Maybe the only hope for the final solution of the problem could be that one of these authors proves this consideration to be ill-founded!

Allegations that Debian is just using the licence issue as camouflage for their general dislike of KDE are absolutely unwarranted, since I got only very positive responses from the Debian camp including the Debian leadership. There is no doubt that Debian would happily include KDE as soon as the licence problems are solved. Anyway, it does not look like that is ever going to happen. KDE unfortunately has a long tradition in violating the free software spirit:

1.) It was founded by Matthias Ettrich who developed the very fine program Lyx, but then used the non-free toolkit xforms for its GUI, instead of e.g. using a free alternative like TCL/TK.

2.) When the KDE project was started, it was built on a non-free toolkit, too, since QT1.x was not under QPL or any other free (open source) licence. KDE attempted from the very beginning to become the standard desktop of Linux by using a non-free toolkit. They could not know that QT would later be forced by the outcry in free software community and the attempt to develop a free replacement (Harmony) to release QT2.x under an open source licence (which unfortunately is still not compatabile with GPL).

3.) When the free QT replacement Harmony was still in development (it achieved a rather advanced state!) the KDE project refused to agree to switch to this toolkit in the future and they even announced that they will incorporate any useful new features of future versions of QT, which made it impossible for Harmony to ever reach compatability.

4.) KDE had no problems in the change of the licence of kisdn, which was developed under GPL, and as soon as it was accomplished was transformed into shareware. I am quite certain that they did not ask all people who sent patches for their permission for this licence change!

5.) Finally, KDE is blatantly ignoring their constant violation of the GPL of other peoples software that is used in KDE (e.g. in kflopppy). To sum up: There is no other volunteer project in the Linux world that has shown so much disrespect and ignorance of the free software movement than KDE (just for the record: this is said by someone who used KDE since beta4 and once in a flamewar with Bruce Perens even strongly defended the KDE-project; sorry Bruce, I did you wrong!). Therefore, even though KDE is very nice and usable software, I will say goodbye to all KDE stuff and will now only use Gnome which is rapidly evolving into a comparably mature desktop environment (current Helix-Gnome is certainly as good as KDE 1.1, and forthcoming Gnome 2.0 with Nautilus will be on a level with KDE2 and konqueror). Even koffice will soon be made superflous by The Gimp, Sketch, Sodipodi, Gnumeric, Abiword, gcalender, etc. I hope that many will follow this migration from KDE to Gnome.

My offer of 3000,- $ will not be lost for free software and will now be given to Debian for an improvement of the Debian installer. Further details will be discussed with the Debian project.

With kind regards,
Dr. Günter Bechly

Dontcha love it when life imitates pundits? styopa writes "It seems that TurboLinux and Compaq Computing have announced an Alliance. Compaq will support TurboLinux on all of their platforms. Could this be the beginning of the end of TRU64?" Of course, this was carefully arranged to follow the recent story on Linux mergers, which now seems a bit more relevant. Of course, ZDNet had Compaq pegged for a date with Mandrake, but close enough.

Comments

New TLD?

[TBHiX]

So, who wants to go in on buying the hardware (and possibly the launch costs) to start the .space TLD? At least there's a tacit agreement that governments can't lay jurisdiction.

Then, we start hosting DeCSS and anyone else offending the whoreporate mentality...

-TBHiX-
Error code COMMENT_TAKEN_SERIOUSLY -- The user failed to view comment with the sense_of_humour library linked. Recompile and try again.

Re:New TLD?

[Rand Race]

From your link:

Article II of the Outer Space Treaty provides that:

Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claims of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

And;

Although the Moon Agreement provides for the creation of an international régime to provide some form of limited property rights in space, the fact that only nine countries have ratified the Moon Agreement poses a significant obstacle to the development of such a régime.

So it's a bit more than tacit, but does not invalidate national sovereignity over their craft. However, like maritime law this can be worked around by registering your craft under the flag of a country whose law is more supportive of your intentions. The vast majority of american owned surface transport sails under Liberian or Panamanian colors for just this reason (although it's the tax law not criminal law they are avoiding).

And when it comes down to it, words on paper mean nothing without the power to enforce them. I'm not sure the government would waste a killsat on an orbital warez server. Then again, getting a few grams of junk in the waresat's (heh, I like that) orbital path would probably be dirt cheap.

Re:New TLD?

[RFC959]

So, who wants to go in on buying the hardware (and possibly the launch costs) to start the .space TLD? At least there's a tacit agreement that governments can't lay jurisdiction.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's a whole body of law dealing with this sort of thing, and yes, governments most certainly will claim jurisdiction. Remember, this sort of issue has really been around ever since ships sailed out of sight of land. WRT spacecraft, the general principle is that they carry with them the jurisdiction of the country that owns them. Then again, IANASpaceL, but these guys are.

Moderate this up

[bconway]

I think the comment about Tru64 was the most outlandish thing I've heard all week. Tru64 UNIX is a mature, stable, and reliable OS, only to be matched by Solaris. We won't be seeing the end of it anytime soon.

Re:Moderate this up

[Taliesin]

Well, what is the 'killer app' that sells Tru64? In that market, it's obviously Digital's C & Fortran compilers and libraries, since they produce much better code than gcc, and this is a performance-critical market segment. However, since Compaq decided to port this software to GNU/Linux, the remaining advantages of Tru64 are merely technical features (better scalability than Linux, etc.) that will soon be matched by advances in Linux kernel development.

Yes, the compiler suite is a killer app. So is the TruCluster software. It's what really helps sell Tru64. Rated #1 by D.H. Brown.

And don't think Compaq will drop Tru64 anytime soon. They look at it as a big brother-little brother approach. Tru64 is for the high end; Linux is for the lower-end. Start them on Linux, and maybe they'll be ready for Tru64 some day. I love Linux, but currently it can't handle the same configurations that Tru64 can.

Any doubts, ask Jon 'maddog' Hall. He'll verify for you that Tru64 really is a quality Unix.

Re:Moderate this up

[Otter]

One company I can commend for refusing to follow everyong else in jumping on the Linux bandwagon is Apple, although I realize this decision was probably based on licensing restrictions more than anything else.

Huh? Apple was developing MkLinux before Slashdot existed. Incidentally, the disk formatting utility that ships with MacOS not only has an option for Mac/Linux dual booting partitions but also one for LinuxPPC-recommended only!

Re:Moderate this up

[Phroggy]

I think the comment about Tru64 was the most outlandish thing I've heard all week. Tru64 UNIX is a mature, stable, and reliable OS, only to be matched by Solaris. We won't be seeing the end of it anytime soon.

Do you mean to say that you honestly believe that just because something is better, a corporation won't stop using it? This is America, and that view is simply naïve. Linux is a popular buzzword, and Tru64 UNIX is not.

Remember, too, we're talking about Compaq, not DEC anymore. Since when has Compaq been interested in quality?

One company I can commend for refusing to follow everyong else in jumping on the Linux bandwagon is Apple, although I realize this decision was probably based on licensing restrictions more than anything else.

--

Re:Moderate this up

[styopa]

I am currently working with both XP1000s running Tru64 and Ultra 1's and Ultra 10's running Solaris 7 and Solaris 8. Although I agree that Tru64 is mature, stable and reliable, my experience with the two is that Solaris is better cared for by Sun than Tru64 is by Compaq. Perhaps you have had a different experience than I, but I have found that there are more programs are created for Solaris and then modified to work with Tru64 later, and in some cases almost as if it were just thrown together.

I don't want it to disappear anytime soon, it works fine for my high energy physics research, although not all of my collegues have the same luck. All of the software we run were created on Sun boxes and not all of them have been ported to Tru64, I'm just lucky that the ones that I need have been.

The reason that I think that this might be the beginning of the end of Tru64 is that with Compaq openly supporting Linux on the Alphas, Linux will take some of the would be Tru64 users away. That along with it competing directly against Solaris in quite a few markets may cause Compaq to think about whether or not keeping it is cost effective.

I don't think that Tru64 will be going out anytime soon, but this might be the first of many moves towards its death.

Re:Support Harmony!

[brank]

LessTif eventually reached Motif compatibility. Many, many, people use it instead of Motif, even with OpenMotif avalible. If we can do that with Harmony, no matter how long it takes, we would start being used by a lot of people. Once Harmony is almost caught up to QT, we've won. Can you picture TrollTech and the KDE team immediatly releasing new versions of their products every time Harmony fixes whatever compatiblity is broken by the new version of QT?

They just can't work that fast. At worst, the Harmony releases would lag a few weeks behind. And they just can't run ahead that quickly. As soon as they broke Harmony, we'd catch right up.

Remember, we have source, unlike LessTif. Harmony programmers could find out how QT worked, and develop their own version. TrollTech can't take the source away, or they will anger so many people that Harmony will get even more support.

We can catch up quick and stay caught up. If people get behind this, there is no way Harmony can lose.

Re:"fsck" rant

[acidrain]

In another 10 years fsck will be taboo in the mainstream and net nanny software will ban access to *NIX distros...

ef.sec: 1. Filesystem check. 2. Experiancing something like fs corruption. May have gained popularity due to it's similar spelling to "fuck." This is of course almost identical to the popular meaning of "fucked," and therefore has similar usage.

Also, the term "fucked" as you use it is also slang.

Re:The Dr. Bechly Article

[acidrain]

No being a moderator, I'll second that the old fasion way...

Re:The Dr. Bechly Article

[acidrain]

He knows that. He is saying it needs more attention than this. Why don't you read the posts.

Re:Umm ...

[acidrain]

If this quote (which is apparently what Debian maintains) is true, then aren't Redhat, Corel, Mandrake, SuSE, (etc. etc. etc. etc.) BREAKING THE LAW by distributing binary KDE packages?

I'd sure like to see the KDE official statement on this. It seems really wierd it hasn't that come up in this discussion. Anyone have any pointers?

Re:"fsck" rant

[zeck]

"fsck" meaning "fuck" is freaking lame. It's dorky as hell, and just doesn't mesh well.

I think you misunderstood. I am absolutely not in favor of "fsck", but I think the guy who complained was a moron.

Re:what about php4 and qpl?

[Chandon Seldon]

The QPL is a "open source" licence, and it meets the DFSG. A program, like KDE, that links QPL code with GPL code violates the GPL, and is therefore ILLEGAL to distribute.

Re:Support Harmony!

[sirinek]

Lesstif eventually reached Motif compatibility because Motif is a dead horse. There hasnt been any development on Motif or CDE for some time, or at least if there has, someone please let me know. There was a posting on /. not so long ago about this very topic. It linked to a ZDNET article which could be found here.

siri

Re:The Dr. Bechly Article

[kzinti]

The Dr. Bechly article was already done... over a week ago... maybe if you read articles, instead of bitching so much, you'd know this.

Maybe you should read the articles. Dr. Bechly's original article, which you linked to, was his original money offer. What this slashback contain, and what the first poster said should be a standalone article, was Dr. Bechly's withdrawal of the original offer. Read both and you'll see the difference.

To put this post back on-topic, I enjoyed reading Bechly's withdrawal of the offer, but I agree that it should have been an article of its own. Dr. Bechly's original offer was deemed significant enough that it was posted standalone. Surely today's text, including the interesting (and controversial?) issues raised, deserve the same consideration. Today's post was not only long enough to stand on its own, but the subject deserves its own discussion space, separate from the unrelated threads that will turn up here because of the other slashback topics.

--Jim

Isn't QT a "platform", like Windows or Mac?

[Tord]

I know this is a very delicate question and maybe I'll take this suggestion back later if a reply or two convinces me that it's a bad idea:

We all know that it's OK to bring free software to platforms like MacOS, BeOS and Windows, despite the fact that the underlying APIs and libraries (which the programs must be linked against) are proprietary.

Can't the same apply to Qt?

After all, Qt is a kind of system library, providing a common platform for all supported architectures (UNIX with X, Linux on framebuffer and Windows), so I don't think it's wrong to see it as a platform of its own, although it might be more of a "virtual platform", running "emulated" on the host platform.

I know we all want this problem to just go away and by acknowledgning Qt as a programming platform and not just a toolkit (as I understand it, Qt contains much more than just the graphical elements in order to make Qt code independent of other libraries so that it can be ported to all supported platforms, making it more of a platform than a toolkit) it could just happen.

/Tord

Re:The unfortunate tale of flames, KDE, and OSS

[kali]

First, let me say that for someone who "thoroughly disagree[s] with the very negative and aggressive means of disparaging and attacking", you show a remarkable aptitude for it.

Now for a point by point rebuttal:

KDE attempted from the very beginning to become the standard desktop of Linux by using a non-free toolkit.

Apologies for the strong language, but that is an outright lie. How, in the name of Linus, can one attempt to become the standard Linux desktop by using a non-free toolkit?

Geez, are you really this obtuse? Give the guy a break for having less than perfect english. By 'by', he obviously means 'while', or simply ','. His gripe is that it's kind of lame to build a free desktop on top of a non-free library. Can you really not grok this, or are you just being an asshole?

KDE unfortunately has a long tradition in violating the free software spirit

This starts out as an outright flame. Using the shield of the 'free software spirit' isn't the best way to begin an argument.

And calling something an 'outright flame' is a good way to start an argument? Regardless, if you'd taken the time to really read this you'd realize that his 5 points are delineating exactly in what way he thinks KDE has violated the 'free software spirit'. Thus he's not using this as a 'shield', it's his entire argument.

Quite a few people (BP, JWZ, ESR, RMS, etc) would wildly differ on what that spirit is, and how it's best interpreted.

Given that we're talking about free software (not open source or some other bastardization), I think RMS' interpretation would be the only relevant.

Quoting it as your main point of thrust to put the KDE project in a bad light will just evoke hatred and disgust from many.

Well, it definitely invoked hatred and disgust from you. As for me, I think it's a completely valid beef to have with a project.

When the free QT replacement Harmony was still in development (it achieved a rather advanced state!) the KDE project refused to agree to switch to this toolkit in the future

Of course they refused to switch to it at some later undisclosed point in time...

You seem a little confused as to what Dr. Bechley wanted here. He wanted something along the lines of "Yes, we (KDE) care enough about licensing issues to switch to Harmony if/when it becomes ready. In the meantime, we'll try to limit our usage of new Qt features, in order to make the Harmony people's lives easier." From what I've read here and elsewhere, the KDE people refused to even consider switching, regardless of the state of Harmony. And KDE's insistence on using new Qt features meant that Harmony would be in a state of permanent 'catch up'.

I will say goodbye to all KDE stuff and will now only use Gnome which is rapidly evolving into a comparably mature desktop environment

You see, this is how major flamewars start. You criticise the ATTITUDE and debatably also the LEGALITY of KDE maintainers and licenses, and follow it up by, quite frankly, only thinly veiling 'GNOME ROCKS! KDE SUX!'.

First, I think it's perfectly valid to criticize both the 'ATTITUDE' and 'LEGALITY' of people who consistently violate the GPL. How else do you think such violations should be criticized?

Secondly, there was no 'GNOME ROCKS! KDE SUX!', either explicit or implicit, in his closing. Dr. Blechly claims not only to have used KDE since the early betas, but also to have gotten into a flame war with Bruce Perens for supporting them. No where did he claim that GNOME was in any way superior to KDE in technical terms; he simply said that GNOME was the equal of KDE (or would be soon). This hardly qualifies as 'GNOME ROCKS! KDE SUX!'.

Keep cool. I'm not sure I've managed to do so myself, and there's certainly a lot of finger-pointing in the lines above, but let's try to keep calm.

Well, I've made no effort to keep calm, nor have I made any effort to hide my flaming and finger-pointing. I think it's the height of absurdity to ask for calm while flaming away madly, but that's just me.

Re:KDE and open source

[panda]

And, it's only free on UNIX, if you're free on UNIX. That is the QPL only allows you to use Qt in free software without paying the license of $1,000+ US. If you want to write, closed source, commercial software, then you gots to pony up the bucks. Your project might not even have to be closed source, either, for you to pay the license fee. It may just have to be "commercial," a word I take to mean "for money."

Debian doesn't want to inculde KDE???

[nowan]

So many people seem to think that this whole uproar is because Debian folks have their collective noses up in the air and don't want to include KDE. I can only assume that these people think that this whole licensing issue is just a smoke screen for Debian's "real" reason for not inculding KDE.

I'm not a Debian maintainer or anything, but from everything I've heard on the debian-legal list, etc., an awful lot of debian folks would really love to have KDE in the Debian main collection. But, partly because they're not a big corp that can accept the (possibly small) risk of a lawsuit, and partly because they've always tried to be above reproach when it comes to respecting other people's licenses, they really don't feel comfortable including it unless this license issue is cleared up.

What, after all, is so terrible about the idea that Debian folks would want to hold themselves to a higher standard than Redhat, Mandrake, and the like? Not that these places aren't doing a lot for the linux and free/open comunities, but Debian is a different kind of distribution, with different goals. Part of that means doing it the Right Way(tm), and one thing that means is absolute respect for the wishes of the author when it comes to licensing and distribution.

Are the KDE folks doing anything really terrible by not pursuing this issue the way Debian people think they should? No, I don't think so. They're coders, not lawers, and so code is their priority. But that doesn't mean Debian can ignore the issue just because KDE happily puts up with a little bit of a grey area in their licensing.

The result of this, obviously, is that Debian can't include KDE. That's fine for me personaly, I'm a command-line guy, and tend to distrust integrated desktops anyway. But many Debian users want KDE to be part of Debian, and I'm certain there are Debian maintainers that would love to manage a set of KDE packages. These people are understandably aggravated that they can't do this simply because of a piddling little license issue (one that would admitedly take a lot of legwork to resolve).

Re:"fsck" rant

[drycht]

hrm... Some people do still find the word "fuck" vulgar and feel that "fsck" is more appropriate. I mean, nobody would say that they enjoy a good fsck, just because fsck takes a long time and it might have some bad news about your filesystem. With "fuck" you have that ambiguity over whether it means something bad or good.

--nath

In Defense of KDE

[RobsAndroid]

1.) It was founded by Matthias Ettrich who developed the very fine program Lyx, but then used the non-free toolkit xforms for its GUI, instead of e.g. using a free alternative like TCL/TK.

Tcl is a scripting language. Tk is a widget toolkit originally devloped on top of Tcl. When Lyx was being developed, I believe there were no Tk bindings for any other languages. Developing a full featured WIYSIAWYG editor with a scripting language in the days of the 486 in not something I would want to try. In the days when Lyx was developed, most Xwindows software was based on either the Athena (Xaw) toolkit that comes with Xwindows, or Motif. Athena is not particularly pretty, and lacked anything beyond the basic widgets. Motif is even less free than xforms. I believe there were some open source toolkits available, but I don't think any of them were particularly mature at that time.

When I wrote my first linux app, back in early '96, I also used the xforms library. It had a nice dialog editor, looked nice, and was easy to develop with. Back then there were still many areas in which usuable open source applications were unavailable, and people weren't quite as religious about using only open source. (Or maybe it only seemed that way to me.)

Irregardless, I hope the fact that I also used a non-open source toolkit in the past does not invalidate any open source software I write in the future.

Re:Why port to Quicktime?

[drinkypoo]

Why would a group in favor of opensource support a notoriously closed source platform?

If you want it on the Mac, where do you suggest you put it? A codec for media player? Allow me to say, "Ha ha ha."

Apple has a exclusive license with Sorenson Vision for the Sorenson codec. Also Apple doesn't port their codecs to the native platforms standard media layers.

Yes, I agree, that's ridiculous. Apple is lame. They closed the clone market, they close all their standards, they won't give Be specs on the G4 (So, Apple, are you a hardware company, a software company, or both? Figure it out, eh) and they won't help anyone out with any issue on any platform any more. We've gone (as opposed to come) a long way since the Apple ][.

Seems goofy that anyone would care to support Quicktime until Quicktime supports us.

Mac users don't have a choice about whether Apple supports things in an open fashion or not, and to let them view the same content, you need the codec there, too. It's unrealistic to expect people to give up on Macintosh computers and MacOS just because Apple is being lame.

Re:Umm ...

[Phroggy]

If this quote (which is apparently what Debian maintains) is true, then aren't Redhat, Corel, Mandrake, SuSE, (etc. etc. etc. etc.) BREAKING THE LAW by distributing binary KDE packages?

That's correct. IANAL, but this guy is saying that distributing KDE binaries at all is illegal. Distributing the KDE source for people to compile themselves is perfectly OK.

Do their respective legal departments know about this?

I'm sure they do, by now, but they're conveniently ignoring it, because as far as anyone knows, nobody but Debian cares.

Or is the whole issue moot because those who would have to bring forth a complaint about license violations simply won't bother? (And who would those people be, anyhow? The KDE coders?)

It would be the people who aren't part of the KDE team, but who wrote code that was released under the GPL and has been incorporated into various parts of KDE. Were it not for this, the KDE team could simply re-release KDE under their own license, which would essentially be a modified GPL that allows for linking to Qt. The problem is that KDE incorporates code from other people outside the team, and in order to make the licensing change, all of those people would have to consent to this - that's what the $3,000 was for.

--

Re:New meaning...

[Phroggy]

HavenCo's Web site says they're looking for additional locations.....

--

Re:Support Harmony!

[brank]

Personally, I don't use KDE and rarely use Gnome (I have been Enlightened) but I know there are a lot of people who do use KDE. It would be easier to use Harmony to replace QT than to convert KDE to GTK+, and doing so would make KDE free(er) software. I think that for the people who use KDE, or would like to use it (the man who offered the $3000 for example) would benefit from a free KDE. So I think that Harmony would be a Good Thing, even though I personally would not use it.

Re:The unfortunate tale of flames, KDE, and OSS

[pod]

2. [...] If they took a feature from the Harmony kit and implemented it

This particular point refered to improvements to QT that were later used by KDE, but not yet implemented in Harmony. Granted, it wasn't worded in the best possible way, but twisting words does not make for a good argument.

Re:Support Harmony!

[brank]

Skip the compatiblility layer and just integrate Harmony into GTK and get one big toolkit that supports both QT and GTK natively.

But if that won't do (a compatibility layer would probably be smaller, too, if a little less reliable) than yours is a very good idea.

Re:Why port to Quicktime?

[Score Whore]

No I understand the position Apple takes. It's just highly unfortunate that they won't, for example, supply their codecs using the normal Windows codec interfaces so that all applications can benefit, not just the ones specifically tuned to use quicktime. Sure they may not be able to gain whatever perceived advantage is there, but the users would sure be happier.

QT With a BSD License

[TaylorCeres]

If Qt had a BSD license, would there still be license incompatibility problems. I read on the KDE homepage about something called the Free QT Foundation, so that if TrollTech ever stopped developing a FreeQT then it is possible for QT to be released under the BSD license. If this were to happen, would that mean that magically KDE is suddenly in compliance with the GPL? Can someone please enlighten me on this issue?

Re:Umm ...

[Jason Earl]

The person writing the software gets to choose the version.

Yes, I realize that, but there are significant portions of KDE that the KDE team did not write. How many of those authors will be willing to specifically allow the linking of QT? And the KDE team has not been stringent about having patch submitters sign over their copyrights either. What if one of those folks complains?

Not too mention the fact that all the KDE team would have to do is say GPL 2.0 with the exception that you can link QT and their software would already be perfectly legal. That was what the $3000 in question was supposed to be for. However, it turned out that the KDE team was not interested because changing the license at this point would be very difficult. So instead the KDE team has been unwilling to even look at the possibility that they might be legally obligated to change their license.

As for your statement that copyright doesn't allow you to forbid anything, of course it does. It allows you to forbid redistribution. That's all the GPL is doing. It disallows redistribution unless you agree to it's license. The terms of the license are quite clear.

Your statement that the GPL is somehow unlikely to be found legal because it "forbids" simply does not stand up. The GPL does no such thing. It simply does not allow redistribution unless you follow the terms of the license. It is no different than a photographer allowing you to make copies of his copyright work (probably because you paid him money). The GPL simply puts forth a list of things that have to happen before redistribution is allowed. If those clauses are not met, then the copyright defaults kick in which state "thou shalt not copy."

It's really no different than commercial software. Except for the fact that they hardly ever allow you to distribute their software. Their licenses even restrict the "use" of material that you have bought and paid for. If the GPL isn't legal then commercial software licenses don't have a prayer.

The DMCA is simply more proof that the big money would probably be on the side of the GPL were it to go to court. A ruling against the GPL would be a ruling against software licenses everywhere, and Microsoft, Sun, AOL, IBM, Time Warner, and the whole rest of the crowd is not likely to stand up to that.

The KDE team somehow feels that they can simply ignore the legal ramifications of their actions, and possibly they can. There is a good chance that none of the requisite people will complain (on the other hand there is a good chance that some of the code that KDE has borrowed is under FSF copyright). But don't be surprised when organizations like Debian take the legal (and moral) high road.

Re:The unfortunate tale of flames, KDE, and OSS

[Otter]

1. First, while Bechly is FUD'ing away, the KDE developers have released a new KDE 2 beta. Try it out, report bugs, let them know what else you want.
2. There were people on kde-devel trying to take up the offer (gee you think it might take more than a couple of days?). You can read about it, and if you follow the thread, you'll see why a number of the developers don't give a damn.
3. I'm going home and working some more on the documentation for KHexEdit while Kleopatra compiles. If people want to use it, great! If not, I couldn't care less.

Re:Why port to Quicktime?

[Grahf666]

reasons why they want a quicktime plugin:

1) this is for a *Mac* port of DivX. Most mac users could care less if their media codec was open-sourced.
2) Making it a Quicktime plugin gives excellent integration into Mac OS, because users don't have to learn anything new- it's embedded in the already existing Quicktime Player.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, it would also be cross-compatible with the Windows version of Quicktime.

It makes perfect sense, really.

bahaha..

[Uberminky]

That's the funniest post I've seen all day! Screw the guys that post at +2 and think we really want to hear their lame "Wow cool" posts, just because it's from them. And screw my karma. Your post was funny, dagnabbit!

kissing his karma d'bye,
-Uberminky

Re:Umm ...

[Score Whore]

I don't think that's true. Otherwise anybody distributing binaries of GCC for a non-GPL-ed platform are in violation of the GPL. People like Cygnus and the FSF. However you are right. If Stallman's bizarre interpretation is legit, then since the various vendor copyrights are not compatible with the GPL, nobody should be distributing precompiled binaries for those platforms.

Re:Why port to Quicktime?

[Score Whore]

The opencodex group is in favor of open source. Which is why I don't see why they could want to support Apple. Sure they are probably mac users, but as such they should be particularily sensitive to this sort of issue. See Apple's users want to play with everybody else's toys, but Apple doesn't want to share their own. "Open source" really isn't about that kind of selfish behavior.

The Windows version of Quicktime is an abomination. Quicktime for Windows would be like MS porting their DirectMedia to MacOS. Something they haven't done yet.

Re:Support Harmony!

[brank]

Would it be legal to study QPLed code and then create a non-QPLed version of it.

This is a very important question that would have to be cleared up for anyone who worked on Harmony. The answer is that it depends on how one does it. If you copy code out of QT or create code that is too close to it, you could get in trouble. But if you just learn how it works and then write a better, faster, and free software version that is compatible, there isn't much that they can do.

If you're very careful to write original code and just not steal from QT, you could use the QT code as a guide.

Which leads me to believe that it probably isn't as easy as that, or it would have already been done. If Harmony hackers could use QT sources then why did the project die? After all, it should have only gotten easier.

Three major reasons:

1. KDE didn't care. They were fine they way they were, even if they were breaking the law and the "unwritten rules of our community". Most of the team saw no reason to switch.
2. The users didn't care. See above. It wasn't as clear then to them exactly how wrong what KDE was doing was, but they weren't exactly in the dark, either.
3. Internel Problems. There may not have been flame wars between the major members of the team, but can you imagine how frustrating it was for them? Even some of those who believe were losing hope, or saw no reason to continue, or whatever. They were working on a project created to help another project that had threatened them if they continued. If people believe and support Harmony this time, we can make it work. I can't do this on my own, or I'd have code to send you. I just wish that somebody would listen and try to pick up the pieces of whatever's left of the project.

Re:Why port to Quicktime?

[MagnusDredd]

Yes, notoriously closed. However here (free registration required) is the source code for their quicktime streaming server. It is stated to run on RedHat and FreeBSD as well as NT and Solaris. Open Play, an abstraction layer for network gaming is here (which is in the process of being ported to linux) and of course here is the entire *nix layer for their new OS.

Hmm, I seem to be having a hard time connecting to www.publicsource.microsoft.com, www.opensource.microsoft.com, and www.microsoft.com/opensource/. They seem to be having some technical difficulty with those locations. However my search on their homepage showed their exact stand on Open Source here.

And of course those moronic Mac users are held captive by Apple having no other choices of operating systems as shown by these sites: www.yellowdoglinux.com, http://www.linuxppc.org/, www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-compat.html#s-arches, www.turbolinux.com/about/factoids.html, www.netbsd.org/Ports/macppc/, and www.suse.com/products/susesoft/PPC/index.html.

This is not of course to say that Apple does not need to fix some licensing issues, port some things (Quicktime among those at the top of the list). However I just like to see things put into perspective. BTW, since all their new OS is composed of is the *nix layer and the MacOS X binaries that compose the GUI layer, you could probably port MacOS X to anything running a PPC. possibly including RS6000s, AS400s perhaps some of the S/390s as well. Has interesting possibilies. Can you say Photoshop, Doom III, Adobe Premiere/After Effects, Bryce 3D, and Ray Dream Studio running on a mainframe? Tired of waiting on your PC or Mac for the render to finish? Simply hack X all to hell and run it on a frame...

I can understand not wanting to port something live DiVX to Quicktime since quicktime has yet to be ported. However in the same light it is understandable that a company in their position that is working feverishly to release a *nix based OS, one I'd put my grandmother in front of, that runs off the shelf software may not have the time or manpower to spare to port QT to Linux. In the real world companies must release products that make money to stay in business. I am ok with Apple focusing on getting their OS into place before I start bitching about the lack of QT for linux. After they relase, then I may start bitching again. However try to find source code on Win 9x, Win 2k, or Novell. Sun it seems is also doing some cool things, however they require a $75 registration.

Re:The Dr. Belchy Article

[Rogain]

butt, U gotta add: device=kde.sys to y3r autoexec.bat be4 it worx.

Out of disk space!

[Chagrin]

I wonder if UoSat-12 gets its directories plugged up with files named WS_FTP.LOG.

Re:Out of disk space!

[synaptic-impulse]

um, happen to have that IP...

why doncha see if we can find out what sat that is. betcha there are many that would love to claim the prize to compromising the first "publicly known" orbital ftp box.

or - talk about collocating. I would LOVE to be able to say - "earthquake proof!! heck - all my servers are protected by 1500 miles of atmosphere - and have the best possible physical security you can find. (problem is I wasn't allowed to run linux - so rebooting them after blue screen's a bitch :)

The Dr. Bechly Article

[gwalla]

Why is this in Slasback, and not a main story? It's certainly long enough. Let's keep Slashback limited to minor updates and errata, and put major updates like this one in full-fledged articles.

---
Zardoz has spoken!

Re:The Dr. Bechly Article

[Frog]

Or at least could timothy *please* put some content in the lead of each Slashback, such as a brief summary of each update/correction/feedback, so it's possible to decide whether you want click and read more details?

Also I don't find the humorous/ironic metaphor-fest that funny, anyway.

Slashback too cute

Re:The Dr. Bechly Article

[Signal 10]

The Dr. Bechly article was already done... over a week ago... maybe if you read articles, instead of bitching so much, you'd know this.

Re:The Dr. Bechly Article

[intnsred]

I agree wholeheartedly -- this should be an entire article.

There's little doubt this is a violation of the GPL. Sure, it's a well-meaning violation by nice guys, but a violation nonetheless. It sets a bad precedent and should be treated like any other GPL violation.

Why port to Quicktime?

[Score Whore]

Why would a group in favor of opensource support a notoriously closed source platform?

Apple has a exclusive license with Sorenson Vision for the Sorenson codec. Also Apple doesn't port their codecs to the native platforms standard media layers.

Seems goofy that anyone would care to support Quicktime until Quicktime supports us.

Re:Why port to Quicktime?

[Phroggy]

Perhaps they think they'll be more likely to find a Mac OS developer to build the plugin? Perhaps some company has commercial or other reasons for wanting such a plugin to exist, even if it's open-source?

How much work has been done on making a viable alternative to QuickTime that works on Linux and has similar features? I realize that compatibility with the Sorenson codec is a problem, but does anyone have anything better (or at least as good) that's free? Bonus if it can be used on non-UNIX platforms as well.

--

Re:Karma Whore in Wired

[Signal 11]

I will never live this down...

KDE?

[xant]

Heh, when I read the first line of your post I thought you were gonna go off on KDE. I second your motion, though. Fsck Apple.

Umm ...

[arthurs_sidekick]

the two involved free licences (GPL versus QPL) are mutually incompatible, which makes any distribution of binaries of GPL'ed software that is linked to QT simply illegal!

If this quote (which is apparently what Debian maintains) is true, then aren't Redhat, Corel, Mandrake, SuSE, (etc. etc. etc. etc.) BREAKING THE LAW by distributing binary KDE packages?

Do their respective legal departments know about this?

Or is the whole issue moot because those who would have to bring forth a complaint about license violations simply won't bother? (And who would those people be, anyhow? The KDE coders?)

Anybody got a link to information on this issue?

Re:Umm ...

[Jason Earl]

Read Section 9 of the GPL. It basically states that the person receiving the software can choose to use this version of the GPL or any future versions at his/her choice. All Stallman would have to do is change the GPL so that it specifically closes that loophole. He could easily guarantee that mixing the QPL and GPL was illegal, and then the KDE team would be forced to comment out all of the GPLed software that they have been using.

Not only that, but while the GPL itself has never been tested in court there are literally hundreds of years of copyright law history that would support using copyright to grant certain permissions and to forbid others. Even worse, nearly the entire software industry has a stake in maintaining strong copyright law. That's the reason why NeXT gave in when they were in violation of the GPL in regards to their use of gcc, and it is the reason that Microsoft recently made sure that they were not GPL violators as it regarded their Interix software.

In today's digital economy maintaining the power of copyright is even more important than ever. Some of the biggest businesses in the world are using copyright law to control their intellectual property. So don't go around assuming that the GPL would be declared invalid.

All of this adds up to trouble for KDE, which is why they aren't interested in having these discussions come up. They remember very well what happened when RedHat, Debian, and the Free Software hackers took a stand last time. Gnome was born. The last thing that they want to do is add fuel to the Gnome fire. Unfortunately for them, that is precisely what they are doing.

Re:Umm ...

[JamesKPolk]

As the previous poster said, dynamic linking is a point of contention.

The GPL is full of little holes, that allow it to be used in deviation with the authors' intent, thanks to all sorts of advances in technology.

What's concerned me lately, is what licensing evils will come from the GPL 3. After all, not everyone grants the right to release "GPL 2 or any later version." The GPL 3 will almost certainly contain more restrictions than GPL 2, so the GPL 2 and GPL 3 will be incompatible.

Re:Umm ...

[drinkypoo]

Well, if you're using the header files, which are GPL'd...

Re:Umm ...

[Score Whore]

I don't think this is quite true. Stallman likes to argue that a dynamically linked program is "linked." Thus if you write a program that uses a standard API/ABI to link against a GPLed library, your code is now GPLed. Even if you strictly stuck with the API/ABI only.

However along with every other aspect of the GPL this has never been tested in court. What's more it's unlikely that such an idea would survive a court case.

IANAL though.

FTP From Orbit, It's The Only Way To Be Sure

[chorder]

Screw Sealand and obvious susceptibility to foreign invasion and coercion. HavenCo and other aspiring offshore databanks need to start shooting their servers into orbit.

No governments, no intruders, nothing less than a Cold War Star Wars satellite could take it out (or a meteor shower, but that's what redundancy is for! Come on people, we can make Wintermute before the nationals even get a chance to restrict AI development (like they do every other future focused movement). Alright, so who's got Venture Capital?

-chorder

New meaning...

[Alakaboo]

This whole deal with the satellite FTP server gives new meaning to the term "web SPACE." Okay, okay, I couldn't resist.

Seriously though, what implications will this have on offsite storage, secure data warehousing, etc.? Kind of hard to sabotage that, at least once it gets off the ground. "Sir, I just completed a traceroute on our target, and I think we have a problem..."

Alakaboo

Re:New meaning...

[slashdoter]

I'd like to see them use NT in this thing, "Shuttle Discovery could you fly buy and reboot the server?"

Re:KDE and open source

[Phroggy]

I've never quite understood the need for the QPL. TrollTech could easily achieve the same effect by offering Qt under both GPL and proprietary licenses. Anyone who accepted the free license would be forced (by the GPL) to use it only in free projects, while anyone who developed non-free software would have to pay TrollTech for the privilege. This would be a perfect application of the viral effect of the GPL.

You're absolutely right, and I agree completely.

All that notwithstanding, I don't quite understand why the $3000-guy is so bitter. This all sounds like a lot of sour grapes to me. Why is he so hell-bent on getting KDE into Debian? KDE is a valuable asset to the Linux desktop, but if the Debian people don't want to include it then that's their perogative, and their problem. There are plenty of Linux systems (most of them, actually) that happily include it.

It's not that he's hell-bent on getting KDE into Debian. Debian won't do it because distributing KDE binaries is ILLEGAL. Those other Linux distributions that happily include it are breaking the law. They are violating the GPL, and thus infringing on the copyrights of the authors of the GPL'd code that KDE uses. Most people don't care, so they see it as a non-issue. Debian supports free software and refuses to violate the GPL just because it's convenient to do so - and I highly respect them for sticking to that position.

Most of the time, if someone violates the GPL, everyone gets upset. In this case, nobody cares, because KDE is useful, it's free beer and partially free speech. It's still illegal.

--

Re:"fsck" rant

[zeck]

Jesus, I never thought I'd see the day that "geek" was cool, and people would try so desperately to "act like a geek". You're like inverted fratboys. Get over yourselves and stop trying so damned hard.

Hmm... Sounds like somebody's got a touch of I liked it before it was cool so stay the fuck out syndrome. My advice: Wake up and realize that it's "cool" to be a geek now. Just because you got there first doesn't mean you're "the real thing" and other geeks are just "posers". You should shut up and quit whining because right now you sound like a crusty old codger.

Re:ftp in space

[plover]

I'm afraid that's a ground based machine you're connected to. Sorry...

If you want your packets to fly, try a long distance South African site like http://www.inc.co.za or something. There's a chance your route might take you across the miles on a satellite.

We can only assume that NASA doesn't publish the address because they don't want to have to go hit the reset switch every time the thing gets slashdotted. :-)

John

Re:Support Harmony!

[Jason Earl]

Not only is Motif dead, but the few people who are actively using it were more than happy to stick with the functionality of Motif 1.2. Since the interface wasn't in flux it became possible for LessTif to catch up.

Even with all of this going for LessTif it still took years for it to become a useable replacement for Motif.

If the KDE people would promise to not use any of the new versions of QT (or at least any of the new functionality) then it would be possible for Harmony to catch up. Unfortunately they aren't even remotely interested in doing that.

Harmony is dead. The people who should be most interested in it's resurrection couldn't give a rip if it dies or not, and the people ideologically bound to the idea of free software have already switched to Gnome.

And so now the KDE users are stuck. The two main pieces of software that they rely on are based on two mutually exclusive licenses with similar names, the QPL and the GPL. Not that this is any different than where KDE has always been. Licensing will continue to be an issue, and KDE will continue to lose users and mindshare simply because they didn't read the license carefully enough.

Summer starting to liven up

[scruffy]

Apparently, we needed something this summer to keep us from getting bored, but is the old KDE licensing issue the best that /. can do?

More seriously, from the tone of Dr. Bechly's diatribe, the whole thing sounds like a setup. It is easy to guess in advance that the KDE developers would do their best to ignore his offer. When they did, the good Doctor lists all the KDE sins he can think of or make up. His offer was obviously not very gracious.

I nominate Dr. Bechly for chump-of-the-month.

Re:Support Harmony!

[brank]

True enough. But it's a bad example: that was then, this is now. A lot of people would be interested in this. The community is a lot bigger than it was even two years ago.

Besides, we've got QT source.

Re:Support Harmony!

[brank]

See my comment above this.

Harmony is dead, but this is a whole different scenario. We have more advantages, and KDE has less. Harmony could catch up to QT faster than QT could stay ahead of Harmony.

Re:KDE and open source

[Frizzle Fry]

Qt is a cross platform tool. So, if Troll gpl'd it, someone could port it to Windows and use it create free software there. But, Troll doesn't want to allow that; you need a lisence to develop software for a non-free operating system. The only way to demand you pay a licensing fee to use it for any purpose on a non-free OS is to write your own license which says that. That's what they did, and that's why it's incompatible with the gpl.

The bus came by and I got on
That's when it all began
There was cowboy Neal
At the wheel
Of a bus to never-ever land

Re:Support Harmony!

[Jason Earl]

Would it be legal to study QPLed code and then create a non-QPLed version of it. This is an honest question as I believed that such a work would be a derivative and would therefore also fall under the QPL.

In fact, I thought that having the source code available actually made it harder to be able to reverse engineer. After all, most of the KDE developers have seen the code to QT, and are therefore tainted when it comes to reverse engineering.

If reverse engineering isn't necessary in this case, and you can simply look at the source code and rewrite it in your own words then I could probably create a LGPLed version, and I am a far cry from a competent C++ hacker.

Which leads me to believe that it probably isn't as easy as that, or it would have already been done. If Harmony hackers could use QT sources then why did the project die? After all, it should have only gotten easier.

Does somebody have the answer?

KDE License violations

[MSG]

Can someone expand on KDE project's "constant violation of the GPL of other peoples software"? How is kisdn currently licensed? ("Shareware" is an ambiguous term) What's the violation in kfloppy? Are they using code from mtools?

Support Harmony!

[brank]

It still has a chance! I've mentioned before that "Harmony Needs Support," but no one seems to listen. If Harmony could be revived from it's slumber (there doesn't seem to be any more work being done on it; correct me if I'm wrong), then we could create a version of KDE that would solve the GPL/QPL problems by avoiding the QPL altogether. I know that this is slightly unkosher, but the actions of the KDE project are even worse. Even if they keep using new QT features, we can keep duplicating them.

KDE fans: don't give up: support Harmony for a better desktop!

Re:Support Harmony!

[Jason Earl]

Harmony would almost certainly be a good thing. Unfortunately there are several HUGE strikes against it. First of all, as the other poster already pointed out there is already a perfectly acceptable LGPLed toolkit in GTK+. It even has C++ bindings. Second of all the KDE team has specifically stated that they will incorporate new QT features into KDE. This means that Harmony would continually be in catch up mode.

If there is one thing that the Free Software Foundation and Free Software hackers everywhere have learned it's that it is very hard to chase a proprietary standard. LessTif and Wine are both good examples of why it is simply much easier to support free APIs instead of reverse engineering proprietary ones. If KDE promised not to use any new features, then we could at least hope to get Harmony to the same point that QT is at now. Once Harmony was up to par then Harmony and KDE could grow together. Without the support of the KDE team Harmony doesn't have a chance.

Besides, it is the KDE team that made the mistake of using QT in the first place. They should be the ones creating Harmony (no pun intended). The FSF, Debian, RMS, RedHat, and a whole pile of Free Software hackers have been pointing out the dangers of using QT since before the KDE project was started. The users that didn't stand up for freedom then should not expect someone else to bail them out now.

Remember, for folks like RMS free software isn't about popularity, it's about freedom. The fact that there are quite a few KDE means very little.

The KDE team has acted irresponsibly from day one. These complaints are in no way new complaints. Debian has, to the best of my knowledge, never included KDE despite the fact that the KDE license has been changed for some time.

It makes me glad that I didn't spend any of my time learning QT. It's issues like this that will guarantee that Gnome becomes the desktop of choice. GTK+ and Gnome are advancing rapidly, and there is no question what my rights as a user are.

Re:Support Harmony!

[Hallow]

Why waste time developing a silly toolkit (as the KDE folks used to say), we have GTK+ now.

"fsck" rant

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell don't you people just say "fuck"? "fsck" isn't even pronounceable. It's a fucking abbreviation for "filesystem check". Anyone who's been around for a while reads "fsck" as "filesystem check" or "fs check", which renders it absolutely worthless as a substitute for the perfectly good word "fuck". It's not like it's particularly clever, and it's too fucking common to be an "inside joke", and not obscure enough to demonstrate an especially impressive store of knowledge on your part.

Jesus, I never thought I'd see the day that "geek" was cool, and people would try so desperately to "act like a geek". You're like inverted fratboys. Get over yourselves and stop trying so damned hard.

KDE and open source

[IGnatius T Foobar]

I've never quite understood the need for the QPL. TrollTech could easily achieve the same effect by offering Qt under both GPL and proprietary licenses. Anyone who accepted the free license would be forced (by the GPL) to use it only in free projects, while anyone who developed non-free software would have to pay TrollTech for the privilege. This would be a perfect application of the viral effect of the GPL.

All that notwithstanding, I don't quite understand why the $3000-guy is so bitter. This all sounds like a lot of sour grapes to me. Why is he so hell-bent on getting KDE into Debian? KDE is a valuable asset to the Linux desktop, but if the Debian people don't want to include it then that's their perogative, and their problem. There are plenty of Linux systems (most of them, actually) that happily include it.
--

The unfortunate tale of flames, KDE, and OSS

[at-b]

To start with, I'm sorry if this ends up being fairly strongly worded - but I thoroughly disagree with the very negative and aggressive means of disparaging and attacking the KDE project as a whole. As Lando Calrissian said - here goes nothing:

KDE attempted from the very beginning to become the standard desktop of Linux by using a non-free toolkit.
Apologies for the strong language, but that is an outright lie. How, in the name of Linus, can one attempt to become the standard Linux desktop by using a non-free toolkit? By doing so, one is rather going to incur the wrath of many Linux users who will not use it; therefore, using a non-free toolkit is the exact opposite of an attempt to become the standard Linux desktop. Two additional points - GNOME/GTK attempted that, said in a very outright and honest manner that they were doing so, and have more or less succeeded in becoming the 'standard' Linux desktop environment. Fanatic advocacy due to their free nature has added fuel to that. The fact that RedHat etc. are supporting them to such a degree is only more proof. The people behind KDE are very, very smart - they wouldn't have used a non-free toolkit if they'd seen a superior alternative; in their opinion (NOT MINE - NOT A REASON FOR FLAMEWARS) the QT libraries made coding easier than any other toolkit. So they used it. Not because they wanted to use it to gain 'Linux Desktop Supremacy'.
Oh - and it's not the standard desktop of LINUX, for Theo's sake. It's intended for UNIX- and UNIX-like systems. I like my FreeBSD KDE desktop quite a lot.

KDE unfortunately has a long tradition in violating the free software spirit [...]
This starts out as an outright flame. Using the shield of the 'free software spirit' isn't the best way to begin an argument. Quite a few people (BP, JWZ, ESR, RMS, etc) would wildly differ on what that spirit is, and how it's best interpreted. Quoting it as your main point of thrust to put the KDE project in a bad light will just evoke hatred and disgust from many.

When the free QT replacement Harmony was still in development (it achieved a rather advanced state!) the KDE project refused to agree to switch to this toolkit in the future[...]
Now, several points:
1. Of course they refused to switch to it at some later undisclosed point in time. They were using QT, which at that time was a highly advanced, well-supported, well-documented toolkit. Harmony aimed to be an open copy of QT, but never reached a state where any type of reasonable compatibility was achieved. If I was asking anyone here to throw away their Windows boxen, because WINE/X/Berlin/Linux may one day support all the games through a compat layer (WINE), and is now already supporting quite a few (Fallout2, etc), what would you say? Even worse, for those developers, the switch to Harmony would have meant embracing a half- finished toolkit. If you've ever done any major dev work, you will know that buggy, unfinished, or plain incompatible development tools are the most grievous bane you could ever encounter. Users of MS Visual Studio would probably agree wholeheartedly.

2. and they even announced that they will incorporate any useful new features of future versions of QT, which made it impossible for Harmony to ever reach compatability
That is the whole mantra of a lot of OSS development - if you see a good feature somewhere, you adopt it. Of course, if MS ever did so, their code would be closed, and nobody'd know how and what they did, and what they stole - but the KDE code has always been OPEN! If they took a feature from the Harmony kit and implemented it into software that is based on a Harmony-compatible toolkit, why would that invalidate Harmony compatibility? And even if the KDE people had broken the code for some reason, it'd be easy to see what they were doing, the CVS tree and the open code were and are there for everybody to see. (er, ok, maybe the KDE CVS tree merits another thread ;)

3. Finally, KDE is blatantly ignoring their constant violation of the GPL of other peoples software that is used in KDE (e.g. in kfloppy)
For the main KDE developers, it is fairly difficult to always be able to track down code, and its origins. Whilst it may be true that licenses were violated in KDE-incorporated code, how can Linus, for instance, be absolutely sure that the patch he was just mailed to improve TCP/IP stack stability doesn't in some way violate other licenses, e.g. the BSD license? I would give the KDE developers at least the benefit of doubt, collect and document said GPL violations, and report them on the public KDE dev mailing lists. If those attempts fail, document what's happening, put up a website, and mail an article to Slashdot - once it's read by a million geeks, how damn fast do you think the KDE guys will come around to fixing it? Corel etc. have been quite good at fixing those problems so far, no?

4. I will say goodbye to all KDE stuff and will now only use Gnome which is rapidly evolving into a comparably mature desktop environment [...]
You see, this is how major flamewars start. You criticise the ATTITUDE and debatably also the LEGALITY of KDE maintainers and licenses, and follow it up by, quite frankly, only thinly veiling 'GNOME ROCKS! KDE SUX!'.

Even koffice will soon be made superflous by The Gimp, Sketch, Sodipodi, Gnumeric, Abiword, gcalender
Miguel freely admitted that for Gnumeric, for instance, he just [paraphrased quotation] 'copied every feature from MS Excel', an attitude that you aggressively criticised earlier on? And you follow it up, again, by basically saying 'Gnome software rocks!' .. *sigh*

I hope that many will follow this migration from KDE to Gnome.
Holy Cron, could this be any more incendiary? I'm pretty sure that this is the first truly fully-fledged flame posted as an article on Slashdot. I know lots of people are just waiitng to flame the hell out of Dr. Bechly, but just leave it. Point out the flaws in his argument, but don't insult KDE, Gnome, GTK, E, or whatever else. Keep cool. I'm not sure I've managed to do so myself, and there's certainly a lot of finger-pointing in the lines above, but let's try to keep calm.

Alex T-B
St Andrews

ftp in space

[nomadic]

Connected to ipinspace.gsfc.nasa.gov.
220 ipinspace.gsfc.nasa.gov FTP server (SunOS 5.7) ready.
Name (ipinspace.gsfc.nasa.gov:andrewc): anonymous
530 User anonymous unknown. Using binary mode to transfer files. ftp>

I'm in space! Or at least my packets are. And solaris? I have this image of a purple sparc 10 floating around, trailing a keyboard and mouse...
Seriously though, this is quite cool, and I'd think it deserved it's own article. I'd love to get an account on a satellite; I'm curious as to whether in the future this will be a way to create truly extra-national data centers (kind of like what they're trying to do with Sealand now).

Re:ftp in space

[nomadic]

Yes, I was being a little fecetious; considering they said they had to write special software for the satellite, I assumed it wasn't a sun box tied to a jet pack (though the image that brings up amuses me). The web page was a little vague on the details; I'm curious exactly as to how the data is transferred between the ground station and the satellite, especially whether it's realtime or just periodically downloaded. They did say the satellite has it's own router and ip address, but I assume outside ip connections are rejected.

what about php4 and qpl?

[mrloco]

There are a number of projects that have been released under qpl-like licenses; the most notable being php4. php4 relies on zend, which is licensed under the qpl. Zend is the only engine for php4, so php4 is essentially qpl-derived. Note that you can get debian pakages for php4 from the unstable list at debian.org (but not kde packages).

Tru64

[Anonymous Coward]

End of Tru64? This just shows how stupid you are Timothy. Businesses who are serious about reliability, scalability, failover, etc. want Tru64 or Tandem...not some open source POS that gets hacked every week.