Slashdot Mirror
Qt Going GPL
summer was the first to note that it looks like Qt 2.2 will be released
under the GPL. This removes the licensing problem that is central to the age old (and very boring) KDE/GNOME flamewar. There's still nothing official appearing on Troll Tech's site, but this looks reasonable.
This is the best tech news I have heard all year.
Like every other developer in my acquaintance, I believe QT stands head and shoulders above the competition in terms of its technical merit. It is one of a very few libraries that is beautifully designed, combining elegance, efficiency and full support for reusable components.
I believe even those who are strongly committed to the principles of Free Software (as defined by FSF) have long been enamoured with QT's high quality - but until now we/they have been prepared to forgo its benefits for the sake of Free Software ethics. At last, the release of QT under the GPL will relieve many a frustration for those of us who believe in the ethics of Free Software, but also want the highest quality tools available. This is truly excellent news!
Although I wish Gnome all the best (two high quality desktop environments can harm nobody), I strongly believe that QT and KDE (esp KParts) offer a much more technicaly sound platform for developers to build the fast and robust desktop systems of the future.
With KDE2 we'll have a visually appealing and functionally useful desktop environment. We'll have a web browser that has much better potential than Mozilla. But best of all, for developers, we've now got an advanced (but easy to learn and use) component architecture, a high quality free GUI toolkit, visual GUI development tools, language bindings for Python - and now we've got a community of talented AND committed people who can use all of this without reservations or uncertainties. For mine, this is almost too good to be true. The best technology is now free to win, and I sincerely hope it does.
Great work Trolls.
---- Ends are ape-chosen; only the means are man's.
It uses viral effect to protect our software (Yes, our, not your or mine), by being viral. You can modify/extend/embrace GPL'd code, but the result will always be GPL'd. So you can't hide GPL'd code inside propierty code. (Unfortunatly, this hasn't been court tested yeat.)
What I ment to say, is that GPL's viral effect is a good thing, and we have just seen another victory of it. QT is brilliant piece of code, a fact that has been overseen while we have been fighting over the licences.
signatures pending - ansa@kos.to - (dont mail there)
I don't know a lot of this stuff, but the "easy" port would be to Cygwin + Xlib, and using one of the existing win32 X servers. I doubt this would compete with Troll Techs own native Win32 port.
If you want to make a native win32 port of Qt Free Edition, Cygwin would probably not be of help.
It is nice to see that TrollTech finally comes around and GPL's Qt. Thumbs up to TrollTech for this move.
--
.. then it is fantastic news.
At last these two great products, GNOME and KDE can compete on their merits alone. That's surely in everyone's interest.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
IMO, big companies will still prefer GTK+, however, because they wouldn't like depending on Trolltech for strategic issues like a GUI toolkit.
Ciao
----
FB
Good attitude, Commander. Troll Tech should be praised and thanked for bending backwards and forwards for the community like this. We really do not need your snide remarks here. Will GPL'ed Qt improve KDE acceptance by the community? I certainly hope so. I've always been a KDE fan and user regardless. Now I hope that KDE can compete with GNOME on purely technical grounds and not depend on who can shout louder in the PR wars.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Well, I guess we're going to be forced to rate each one on it's merits now. What a strange concept! It feels... kinky :)
which mean you can release your software under any free software license you want.
If you want to make your software unfree, you won't get Qt for free either. Basically, you choose the rules (free or non-free), and they will apply to both your software and Qt. What you cannot choose, is to play by different rules for Qt and your own software. Somehow, this fair to me.
to many corporate developers. There is of cource the anti-competitive
advantage of GPL to corporate developers: it can't find itself in a
commercial offering by a rival.
I have to say the whole QPL vs. GPL spat has me disillusioned with
the GPL: the GPL doesn't just ensure that it can only find itself in
free software (no-one disputed that the QPL license guarantees this),
it also ensures that it can only find itself in software that conforms
exactly to RMS's conception of free software. This reeks of
ideological intolerance, though I suppose one shouldn't expect
anything else of RMS.
The obvious and immediate repercussions of this is that Debian will be able to include an option for KDE now that the liscensing issues with QT being non-free are solved.
Excellent.
Rami
--
rJames.org - illustration
Just a thought...
It wasn't meant as an attack on Red Hat, I believe attracting unfree software is good for Linux. For example, it means I can play some cool games under Linux, which would probably not be released under a free software license.
Using the LGPL rather than the GPL for key libraries, is one way to attract unfree software.
The QT framework was the only thing making KDE not qualify for being GPL'd, since it was proprietary software.
QT has several advantages over the GTK - it is written in object-oriented C++, and the libraries are cross-platform between UNIX and Windows. IMHO, if you want to build a cross-platform GUI in C++, QT is the best way to go. Supposedly it offers better Windows support than MFC, although I haven't confirmed this myself. However, it was becoming unpopular with Linux developers because it wasn't GPL'd, and having all the industry giants unite behind GNOME looked like the kiss of death for KDE and QT development on Linux.
My hat is off to TrollTech. Now I can feel comfortable using QT, knowing it will be around for years to come because of their wise decision to GPL the code.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Great idea, but i need a window manager and I figured enlightenment is as good as any other. In any case I wouldn't consider linux or any unix for doing desktop work anyway. I love linux as a server OS but have no use for it as a desktop OS.
However, the release frequency seems to confirm you are right about enlightenment being obsolete.
Jilles
GNOME is indeed very object oriented. What do you think the 'O' stands for in GNOME? I get very tired of people claiming that you cannot do OOP in C. It is just completely false.
----
Celebrate the finer things in life
What is obsolete is the fact that it is written in C and not in C++. More specific, it is not object oriented (as are most desktop applications these days) and probably includes some cumbersome mechanisms to make it appear object oriented to the outside world. In my opinion this has to lead to maintenance problems. In the open source world this means that perfectly good developers are spending time on maintaining a project that they could also have spent on other projects.
Now about the linux kernel. If it had been developed in C++ from the beginning, it would probably have moved past the point the current linux kernel is at. Rearchitecting it now is probably not feasible. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if a C++ kernel took over in the future.
Jilles
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I think shareware culture is something we can live without in linux-community.
Don't toss shareware aside so casually, especially in reference to games. First Person Shooters pretty much owe their current popularity to the shareware Wolfenstein, and the next wave (whatever it is) could come from anywhere.
-jpowers
-jpowers
This is just not true. The NT kernel uses the Pascal calling convention because it's marginally more efficient spacewise, but the operating system itself has always been written in C and C++.
The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
If you hadn't realized this, but Linux distros are full of redundant software. That's one of the main reasons I switched to Slackware. In RedHat 6.2, there are 3 versions of awk. Most distros come with two versions of gcc and their addandant language components (OBJC, Java, etc.) Mandrake comes with 3 Java compilers. (GCC-Java, Guavac, and Jikes.) Even Slackware has 3 versions of libc. Then there is all the redundancy that KDE and GNOME bring. Face it, if you were scared of a lot of code living on your computer, you wouldn't use Linux.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Uh, I don't really think $2500 is going to be a deciding factor in software development. I mean most projects spend 10x that on pizza over the life of the project! If Qt saves just 5% development time for a dozen programmers in a medium project, $2500 will mean nothing.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Network. What's your point? I fail to see your argument.
----
Celebrate the finer things in life
Isn't that hipocracy? I mean propriatory software developers on Windows are no worse then their Linux counterparts. If Linux developers get it free, then so should Windows developers!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Troll Tech has done everything necessary to accomodate the requests of the free software community. They have my sincere thanks, and should have yours, too.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The way to bring Windows desktop users over to Free Software is to create cross platform Apps which reduce the need for Windows as a base platform in order to create a migration path for users
Exactly, and thats why I started GNUSoftware.com.
We should think about cross-platform issues though. I spend a lot of time trying to compile "portable" applications, which use GTK+, on Windows - and fail because people are using Linux specific calls when they really don't need to.
Even the Qt app's I see on Freshmeat are often very Linux specific, for no good reason, and this stops me using them on Windows. (I've got a professional license).
Steve
---
Sure, we all know of the historic fragmentation of Unix. But since then, the few examples of major forks in Open Source / Free software are notable for being rare exceptions to the general rule.
--
I'm not aware of this code, but if you post (or email me) the modules or files it's found in I'll be sure it has the proper credits on it. Unless you post specifics though I'm guessing this is a troll.
Some factual corrections: the GNOME Foundation does not write code (and in fact is not yet legally incorporated), so it certainly should not be the subject of your sentence there. We also do not consider KDE a "bitter rival."
Now with this released let KDE/GNOME compete on merit not politics. The sad fact is that KDE is at a disadvantage because of the Big corporate sponsership of Gnome. This does not mean that KDE can not get sponsered by these same companies. It just mean that KDE would have to have another project within the companies. Intel sponsers BEOS and Linux because it helps them sell hardware. If a company can see that they can make money of sponsering KDE they will.
One of the great things about the free software community is the fact that it is growing. The people that compose the "mainstream" Free Software community today aren't necessarily the same ones that composed it two years ago. They sure as hell won't be the same as the ones two years from today. I am one of the new kind. A person who converted to the movement only recently. I don't have any bad blood against Qt. Neither do many of my peers. To the people that we convince to use free software in the future, the subject of the Qt license will be nothing but a history lesson. We will decide who's product we use, and whose product we contribute time, effort, and code to nased on the findings of our own experimentation. How can you be so sure that we will choose Gnome? Is it because gnome is the "standard" now. Step outside of your bubble and look around at the people using Freee Software now. If we chose something because it was the "standard" software for any given purpose, we would still be using Windows. I, and the people who switch to free software, have very little concern for standards. Take note of this and let your sekf grow.
The only thing going for C++, when you think about it, is easy compatibility with C. That's all that stopped it losing to a cleaner OO language like Eiffel.
It is a bit of a pity that open source projects have tended to ignore higher level languages and stick rigidly to C... C++ is at least a bit better, especially if you have a need to work at a low level sometimes.
Compatibility is always going to be an issue, though. There is a huge body of free C code out there which projects such as KDE draw on heavily (consider, for instance, OpenSSL, libjpeg, libpng and xdm). It's possible to write bindings for other languages, like the Qt bindings for Python, say, but that barrier is always going to be there and there's no guarantee that the bindings will always be well maintained, up to date or clean when the main project doesn't have the language as one of its priorities.
Finally, I'd far rather have OO code written as cleanly as possible in a 'dirty' OO language like C++ than have OO code written as cleanly as possible (ie, not very cleanly at all) in C. I've always found trying to write OO C to be a somewhat painful and messy experience.Bruce
Bruce Perens.
However, the biggest problem with using C++ for shared libraries under any platform is that there is NO spec for
As a result, it is not possible to guarantee that file x.so, created with g++, is linkable to y.so, created with Borland C++. It's a shame that with all the other CRAP the ANSI committee dragged into the language during standardization, they couldn't have spelled out at least how to mangle the damn names!
As a big fan of C++ myself, I'd LOVE to see the kernel, X, and the windowing toolkit be true C++ classes: this is systems programming and that's what Stroustrup created the language for.
However, I take exception (pun intended) at the claim that QT is C++: It isn't. It is another language, that you then must run through Qt's MOC preprocessor to make C++. If TrollTech had truly make Qt C++, they would have used virtual functions or functors to implement the connection to the windowing message system, not this mutant "Signals and Slots" stuff. That's what got me when I looked at KDE: I want to write in C++, not some mutant version of something that is almost C++. It's almost as bad as working with somebody who uses
There. I said it. I feel better.
me->Attire(Attire::Flamesuit);
www.eFax.com are spammers
In short, we have been convinced that the GPL does indeed protect a library from being used to develop non-free software. Non-free software, in this respect, of course, includes software developed internally in an organization.
They seem to imply that code from Qt, or any GPL-licensed program, may not be used in any in-house software projects which are not distributed to the public. This conclusion flies in the face of the FSF's own interpretation of the rights granted by the GPL and free software:
I'd be very interested in finding out if the Qt/KDE developers really intend to say that I have no right to make in-house-only modifications or use of Qt.I don't think so.
The idea behind the RMS editorial you're thinking about is that the GPL is preferable when you are providing functionality not available in other libraries. The LGPL is meant for situations where you provide functionality that the non-free competition already provides.
Since there's plenty of GUI toolkits around, free or otherwise, I don't think it matters a bit. And, since Troll will sell you licenses to develop non-free software with Qt, the whole RMS anti-LGPL argument is kinda demolished in this case.
But this is all speculation, isn't it?
At last KDE and Gnome can go completely head-to-head because they are now both totally grounded in GPL licensing. So what does the future now hold?
Corporate take-up? Don't knock it - this is a potentially huge environment. Companies like to know where they stand, and simplified licensing is a huge bonus. Gnome already as a level of corporate acceptance as embodied by the formation of the Gnome Foundation to further the GNOME project. KDE may soon see itself in a similar position.
Interoperability? Both KDE and Gnome are continuing to push their infrastructures forward and both desktop environments are likely to start eclipsing the competition sooner or later (already have eclipsed the competition in some areas). It's likely that Gnome programs will always talk most efficiently to other Gnome programs, and similarly for KDE to KDE, it would be nice to see the arrival of some bridge mechanism to allow the two camps to exchange and inter-embed each others applications across the divide.
Flamewars? Almost certainly :-) At least now there won't be any (meaningful) wars over licensing ...
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
A) Microsoft indeed charges you to develop for Windows applications. Once upon a time you could get the SDK for free, but not anymore. And yes, Qt costs more than VC++, but Qt+Cygnus beats the hell out of MS for quality.
:-) ). The best libraries are LGPL, BSD or freer. Although copyleft may have seemed like a good idea at the time, it absolutely screws over library users.
B) You do make a good point however. Microsoft (and Sun, Borland, RogueWave, etc) doesn't care how I license my code. GPL libraries do. Qt under the QPL/GPL does as well. It's my only beef with Trolltech, but since I am already writing OSS, it isn't an urgent issue with me (so sue me for apathy
C) On the other hand, if you need no restrictions on your own code, purchase Qt just like you purchased your Windows libraries. It's strange bitching about how free libraries don't give you as many rights as purchased ones do. So just go purchase it!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
It shouldn't be that hard at all. About 95% of Qt applies to either system. You only have to support the remaining 5%.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Look again!
There are two new announcements; Qt 2.2 released and Qt/Unix 2.2 being released under the GPL.
:wq!
No. ``Network Object Model'' means that the object model is network transparent.
What does release frequency have to do with Enlightenment being obsolete? There is a lot of work being done on it. It progresses slowly because it is very ambitious.
In ten years we'll be able to look back at this episode in the history of computing with the benefit of hindsight, perhaps in the way we can now look back at the history of Unix - there are still arguments, but they are a lot more subdued.
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
In any case, the GNOME Foundation itself is an advisory board, to the world outside GNOME it will probably look like they do little else than release the occasional statement (or press release or propaganda if you prefer).
It's the individual companies that make up the Foundation that we should be expecting things from and it seems to me that many of the newer companies to GNOME are coming to the table with some fairly substantial quantities of code.
In many ways it's better that such contributions come in slowly rather than overwhelming/changing the character of the GNOME project in a massive code drop.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Interesting choice. Going for the full GPL pleases the extremists, but it also has the side effect of allowing Troll Tech to protect their revenue stream. If they'd made it LGPL, then people could develop and sell proprietarty (closed source) apps using Qt. Being GPL prevents that, thus pleasing both sides. Those wanting to go that route can still purchase a Qt Professional Edition license from Troll Tech (something you had to do under the QPL anyway).
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
At least C++ comes with some basic features C does not provide. Probably you can emulate them with macros (that's how C++ was originally implemented) but that most likely results in an uncontrolable mess. The only way you can enforce OO in C is by adopting strict coding standards. You can do the same in C++ and benefit from the additional features in that language.
I agree that C++ in the hands of C programmers is dangerous stuff. Most likely they don't understand most of the features in the language. Hopelessly stuck in the sixties/seventies procedural paradigm they can do nothing but shoot themselves in the foot. But then, should these people really be implementing the next generation GUI? Me thinks not.
Wrapping doesn't solve anything, you still need to maintain the wrapped stuff + the additional bloat (double trouble). Besides why wrap if you can implement in C++ directly (more maintainable code if done properly), or are we trying to cover up for a lousy implementation here?
Finally binary compatibility, your apps will depend on the wrapper, not the wrapped piece of C blop.
Jilles
> They sold a proprietrary version of gcc to
/. posters claim this over and over, despite having no supporting evidence, and despite the FSF having signed hundreds of counter contracts with GCC contributers stating that they will not allow proprietary version of GCC.
> Motorola (which they could only do because they
> require copyright to be signed over to them).
At least anonymous
GPL'd libraries can ONLY be used by GPL'd applications. At first I was thunderstruck that I can hundreds of other developers would no longer be able to use Qt for the BSD, MIT, Artistic or other Free Software projects. Releasing Qt under a pure GPL license would guarantee that many of us long-time Qt supporters would instantly switch to GTK.
But reading the announcement closer, there towards the end, I see that it will be dual licensed under the QPL and GPL. Whew! Thank goodness those of us who use unrestricted licenses can still use Qt.
This appears to be a dual-license (I have sent mail to Erik to verify). In this case, using the GPL makes all the sense in the world, since now everyone who uses *any* Free Source license can use Qt.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
... because it now means that the vastly unproductive whining about the Qt license that /.ers seem to love can now finally be declared a thing of the past. KDE can now stand (or fall) on its merits rather than on the basis of an ideology devised by a man who doesn't even have to work for a living.
I've been using KDE for a while at home now, and it's slick, especially compared to the lumbering dinosaur that is GNOME. For an operating system with a set of tools designed to be small and modular, it's amazing that most of the applications written for it are so slow and bloated, with "value added" features taking precedence over quality and performance. With people like this on the side of Linux, Microsoft's continued desktop dominance seems to be secured.
Let's hope we see more apps like KDE, where a decent product counts for more than ideological squabbles.
There's nothing stopping developers from forking the FreeQT codebase to create a new Windows based QT.
How does the GPL effect this change? Under the QPL one had every right to port it as well.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Oh my god, Christian Schaller (also known as UrAnus on /.) is out of a job too! Poor guy. Linux Power will have to close down.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
I think they may have missed the bus on this one. If they had released Qt under GPL earlier, the whole KDE/gnome idiotic split could have been avoided.
Why is it companies never open source stuff when things are going their way? (eg Netscape waited til Microsoft had them by the balls).
not_cub
q='echo "q=$s$q$s;s=$b$s;b=$b$b;$q"';s=\';b=\\;echo "q=$s$q$s;s=$b$s;b=$b$b;$q"
Both Mandrake 7.1 and Slackware 7.1 come with both egcs 1.1.2 and gcc-2.95.2. They also come with all the additional components for each compiler (egcs-java and gcc-java, etc).
BTW> OBJC=objective C.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
But so is cost. I have worked at both large and small companies. $1500/developer is a lot of money, and you don't get a whole lot for it with Qt compared, say, to an MSDN subscription.
But ultimately, I think it won't help much. GTK+ is covered by the LGPL, and there are nearly a dozen other free toolkits out there that can be used for both free and commercial software without paying anyone anything. Qt is competing against software that is much cheaper (i.e., free) for commercial usage, and the cheap competition is pretty good.
Another issue that now needs to be revisited is what happens to commercial users of Qt if Troll Tech goes out of business or stops development. Will the FreeQt foundation continue to exist? In the past, it attempted to guarantee that a BSD-style version of Qt would be available.
Yes. That's where CORBA fits in. CORBA is basically an object oriented RPC (Remote Procedure Call) specification.
----
Celebrate the finer things in life
Because claiming that GNOME is "obsolete" on the grounds that it uses C instead of C++ is, IMHO, grossly uninformed, and didn't even deserve explanation. 90% of what makes code easy or hard to maintain is how well it is designed and presented, and maybe 10% is due to the language. I'd much prefer to have to maintain well-written FORTRAN than badly written Java, and, from most of the stuff I've looked at, GTK+ and GNOME are well-written.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
KDE has a far superior architecture to GNOME (its main rival), since it is written in C++
And has no C or Ada/GNAT bindings; do the C++ booksellers have stock in Trolltech?
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
When will you gamer morons get it through your thick skulls that a lot of people *DON'T LIKE* First Person Shooters?!? I for one would not pay .10 for a First Person Shooter.
Don't get me wrong, I feel the same way about FPSes. I'd much rather play strategy games or RPGs, which I'm happy to pay for. What I was suggesting was that shareware has been and still could be an important route for NEW, DIFFERENT, and as yet UNDISCOVERED types of games to be introduced, and shouldn't be tossed aside while it still has potential value.
Of course, to understand what I was trying to say, you'd have to have the capacity to grasp things in context, which would require that you NOT be a moron... too bad you couldn't manage.
-jpowers
-jpowers
OK, so it's flamebait (you even said so yourself), but I'll rise to it. What is obsolete about GNOME's codebase? Are you claiming it's obsolete purely because it's written in C? If so, do you propose retiring the obsolete Linux kernel in favour of the obviously more advanced NT kernel (written in C++)? That argument just doesn't hold any water. BTW, I too am dissatisfied with both GNOME and KDE (and enlightenment, for that matter), and am quite happily using fvwm2.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
from not having seen a major release in a few months, I drawed the conclusion that development is slowing down. Since it is far from perfect, I assumed people have something better to do. I don't closely watch development though, so maybe I'm wrong.
Jilles
ARRGGHHH!!! Why does every good thing happen _after_ a Debian release!?!?!?
Hipocracy means saying one thing and doing the other. Releasing your software under the GPL for Linux (saying that you embrace free software) while keeping it for-pay under Windows (which is essentially NOT embracing free software) is hipocracy by definition. Unless you can prove that using the GPL doesn't mean that you embrace free software, or that charging the developers on one OS and not the other is in tune with the ideals of OSS, then you've got no case.
BTW> People who correct spelling are the most anal-retentive jack-holes you'll ever meet.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
For immedeate release 4th september 2000
The widespread virus called 'GPL' is spreading at alarming rate. Because most patients don't notice any symptoms, 'GPL' has managed to lurk it's way into so many lines of code, that many anylysts believe that all other copyright forms are about to become extinct. RMS, the author of the virus, has been spotted partying like a wild animal and laughing his beard off.
signatures pending - ansa@kos.to - (dont mail there)
...Kylix apps can be released under GNU GPL. No more and no less.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
LGPL is a good license for an open source or free software GUI toolkit if it furthers the goals of open source or free software. I think it does.
From what I can ascertain, the license allows you to "distribute machine-executable forms of the Software or machine-executable forms of modified versions of the Software", and thus you could port Qt to windows- which means that some intreped developer could potentially make Qt an actual Cross platform development platform(I suppose that you could also port it to Mac, and various other OS's)
This would be REALLY nice for all those open source projects that have been residing only on Linux due to Trolltechs strange marketing scheme for the professional version.
The reason C programmers don't use C++ is because it's a complete mess and really offers no benefits over C. It is not object-oriented AFAICT; if it were, then I would be able to program generically, not suffer with these "templates". If you want an object-oriented language to co-operate with your C code, use Objective C. It's easy, it's fast, it's logical, and it allows you to program generically. If you want to a Simula-derived language that co-operates with your C code then, well, your SOOL, because C++ is your only option, and you'd have to have your headers files will be so riddled with #ifdefs as to make them near unreadable. I'm not bashing Simula-type languages. Simula is great. If you want to program in Simula, use Simula. C++, however, takes the worst features of C, the worst features of Simula, and adds a shitload of marketing on top.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
There's nothing stopping developers from forking the FreeQT codebase to create a new Windows based QT. Frankly, I think the Windows port of QT is one of the best advantages of QT over GTK+. Windows support with GTK is still in it's infancy while QT is quite usable.
The way to bring Windows desktop users over to Free Software is to create cross platform Apps which reduce the need for Windows as a base platform in order to create a migration path for users. That means porting the new StarOffice and KOffice to Windows, giving users a chance to feel comfortable with the new environment, and then waiting for the next costly Windows upgrade to convince the users "there's a cheaper way..."
- X is more stable
- X has a better GUI
- X uses much less memory
- X also works on older computers
- X compiles on more platforms!
- X is/should be default on distro Y
(where X is your favorite Desktop Environment)I'm sure you can make up more of these....
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
It seems, from past discussions I've seen and had on Slashdot, that the reason the big corporations prefer Gnome is not the GPL or concerns over the legality of KDE, but the fact that the Gnome libraries are actually L(esser)GPL, which allows the development of proprietary apps.
Now, the KDE libraries are LGPL, but if Qt is GPLed, that makes no difference. Anyone who wants to write non-free software in KDE will still have to pay for the Qt Professional License. Otherwise the whole lot will have to be GPLed, or released under a GPL compatible license.
I suppose it's up to personal taste whether you regard this as a problem or not, but it's something to think about.
That links to the old QPL announcement.
(although I would be more worried if the date was 31st march 23:59:59 :) )
As some people had predicted, the formation of the GNOME Foundation is having more of an effect on KDE than the KDE leaders had claimed possible.
Since Qt 2.2 should be compatible with KDE 2.0, I'll be checking it out in a couple days. Didn't like KDE 1.0 much, but I didn't like GNOME 1.0 much either.
One less problem with an obvious yet unaccomplished solution on the way.
This took a long time. I only hope it will prove profitable for Trolltech - that would show the way for other companies as well. Profitability is actually quite likely, due to more spread (Debian etc) with GPL and the fame of QT's ease of use (I haven't tried out doing user interfaces with anything else but HTML for years, so I really don't know myself).
I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
(from the spoilsport dept.)
Large caveat: This applies only to QT free edition; that is, QT/Unix. Those who wish to develop cross-platform applications will still have to look elsewhere for their toolkit.
Note: Don't bother replying with flames about GTK+ sucking for Windoze. At least the port exists, is free software, and has the chance to improve eventually.
--
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
Well, I have seen no announcement to that effect. But given that FSF prefer libraries to be covered by the GPL rather than the LGPL, they should now consider Qt preferable over Gtk.
Since companies like Red Hat have a interest in promoting development af Linux software, free or unfree, they should still have an interest in Gtk, because the LGPL allows their customers to develop unfree applications.
Freshmeat has an article by the Troll Tech guys talking about why they decided to go GPL.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
> I thought OSS was about *freedom*, freedom
> of choice.
Well, Qt 2.2 gives the developer the *choice* of two licenses, QPL or GPL. Qt 2.0 only offered one license, the QPL. So it seems to me that the freedom of choice has increased, not decreased, with this announcement.
Why is there only one form of not kicking people in the face? I thought not kicking people in the face was about *freedom*, freedom of choice. But it seems that "not kicking people in the face" doesn't allow other violence-level paradigms.
Seriously though, OSS does give freedom of choice. People like Sun were freely choosing GNOME over KDE, which must have been at least partly because of the legal issues with GPL+QPL. Troll, it seems, have chosen to keep themselves competitive, by going with what the market wants.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
> Why is it companies never open source stuff
> when things are going their way?
It would be silly to change a business model that *worked*. Only when the currect business model breaks down, you go looking for alternatives.
Or do you believe companies should make free software for the good of their hearts?
Excuse me if I am wrong. I belive the main gripe with the QPL was that if a closed source developer made software with QT they had to pay Troll Tech. Which means if KDE became the standard linux desktop then all closed sourse developers that wanted to write for Linux would have to pay money to Troll Tech. So the agaer was that is seemed wrong for one company to have such control over linux and m ake money off every closed source app. So that is why people did not want QT to be standard. Maybe I am crazy and wrong. But. They GPLed it not LGPLed. Which is funny because it is a library. What this means is now the code is split but.... If you want to wrote a closed source app you still have to pay Troll Tech! GTK however is under the LGPL with means it is free for closed and opensource developers. So really I don't see the change except the Debian will not include KDE and their distro and people who do not read between the lines with think everything is all better. Personally I don't care what license there software is under. It is their software. But I just don't want everyone who is writting for linux to be forced to pay these guys money. I would like to see them LGPL there library (or BSD it for all I care) and then just sell the development tools to whoever wants them. But hey what do I know. -Brian
Not only does the community gain, but KDE gains too. I hope this removes Miguel's objection to KDE using GNOME code. This will be very interesting indeed as now KDE is free to copy GNOME code verbatim. They may not really want to do that though, seeing how KDE uses clean C++ while GNOME uses C.
On another note, I wonder what it means for Red Hat's C++ toolkit, GTK++, etc. They may gain from copying Qt code too.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Actually, the GPL doesn't protect you from commercial bastardisation at all. Sun WILL eventually produce there own gnome as WILL HP and IBM and even though the GPL means the source will have to be available, who is going to give a damn. There will just be Sun's source, IBM's source, HP's source, Helix source whatever.
However, QT have to be given a little praise here, they grew from nothing to be a relatively profitable little Norwegian company and have taken a very bold step. I hope it works out for them.
Regards
> This is still a move to praise, but with
> the understanding that the qt/gtk competition
> is still important.
Yes, to developers of unfree software, and to companies like Red Hat which want to attract unfree software to Linux. However, I suspect most free software developers don't see it as a problem, that developers of unfree software will have to pay Troll Tech for a license to the professional version.
How hard would it be to port QT/Unix to Cygwin? Anyone who knows lots about this sort of stuff care to answer?
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Because Free Qt is copylefted (choice of QPL or GNU GPL), companies still have to pay the Trolls to be able to port their proprietary winsoftware to free*n?x. GTK+ on the other hand, is lesser copylefted under LGPL; it will be more popular for proprietary apps such as your precious games.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Annoying for us who develop free software that must run on both Unix and MS Windows. However, with the Unix version going GPL, it is now our own fault if we don't port it to win32.
Kernel or OS? Kernel development runs under benign dictatorship, not consensus. OTOH something democratic like Debian is a strong counterexample to your claim.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Ok, point taken - but would you say Red Hat does aim to attract non-free software? AFAICS they do a lot of evangelising of Open Source - as opposed to the aforementioned example of Caldera.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
> Go Per! :-) Just kidding. I love your work man.
Actually, I suspect Bill Perry (of Emacs/W3 fame) wish this had happened three months ago. He has just finished porting XEmacs to gtk/gnome, which he chose because of licensing reasons, even though he prefered Qt for technical reasons.