Slashdot Mirror
RMS on the GPLing of Qt and More
infodragon sent us a Linux Today story by RMS [?] where he weighs in on the recent news about
the GPLing of Qt. I'm sure that there will be a lot more about this over the week.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Baloney.
How many people combined SSH (not OpenSSH) with Linux or *BSD?
How many people combined XForms with Linux or *BSD?
How many people combined QT with Linux or *BSD?
Now here is the tricky part:
How many of these people have been sued/burned/hogtied?
Linux is just a kernel but it sure as hell needs a user friendly front end to attract popular support, and this is where KDE/Gnome have helped. Other X Window desktop environments prior to these two quite frankly sucked big time, and hence no non-literate computer user would've touch Linux with a barge pole.
:-). Anyway GNU wasn't there first, AT&T distributed Unix and toolkit under a fairly open & cheap licence. Like most things GNU evolved from that, even if the evolution step was a big leap forwards.
GNU/Linux really *is* a better description of the body of software that constitutes your average Linux Distro
As you pointed out yourself, there are lots of other apps that make up the average Linux application nowadays, and I am not going to recite the names of all 650 odd of them just to be precise; I'm going to continue to say Linux and leave it at that.
Just because I write an application in Visual Basic on a Windows machine doesn't mean I call it:
"Windows/VB/MYProgram"
I wasn't trying to disparage the work that people have put into the Free Software movement.
In fact, GNU was there first, and wrote more of the overall pie
I'm not sure that GNU stuff does contribute more of the overall pie now that everyone is busy writing the filling, although I happily accept it has supplied a lot of the crust that holds everything else together
How can you possibly look down upon him? He is far more important to the Free Software community than you or I could ever be. He arguably *created* the movement. In taking him so lightly, you just look ridiculous.
Anyway, I wrote a faster implementation of DeCSS for the Linux DVD guys, but I don't want the player naming after me. Even if I had written more than a paltry 3-400 lines of code for it, the point of the Free software movement is anyone can use it in any way they see fit without deifying anyone in order to do so.
Anyway, your opinion was on topic and thought provoking, so quit being Anonymous and have the courage to send your next lot with a User name attached to it.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
"These licenses only dictate what you can do to the code. Big deal. I've never even LOOKED at the KDE code... I have more important things to do than GUI programming." The license dictates who controls the software and who controls your machine and/or your business. This is the reason free (as in speech) software is important. Under the GPL you have control of the product if you want to send it to someone you can if you want to modify it or if you want a bug fix you can do it and or get someone to do it for you. You are not given these rights under any other license or at least not in the absolute that you are with the GPL. It is a simple matter of whe is running your life your computer and your business. You or someone else with the GPL you have the freedom to do what you want as long as it does not take the freedom away from anyone else.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Here is term 4:
-------------------
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as
such parties remain in full compliance.
-----------------
Relicensing the software to overcome the termination is trivial, and doesn't require permission from the original author.
You can relicense the software by just accepting the terms of the license. You don't even need to stand in your office and say "I license it again".
"There is no reason that KDE and Gnome need to either be rivals or be merged."
.*n.x
Huh?? If they're not merged then they remain two distinct projects, with the essentially the same goal - to provide the best possible desktop available on
How can they not be rivals?
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
Despite the masterful first sentence, the 'Hope this helps' tag line marks this post as the work of a troll who got himself a fancy account name.
Since RMS has never been known to participate in Slashdot flamefests, I'm extremely skeptical that this is genuine.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Im not really complaning I dont mind paying for it even it is a very nice library.
It is just contrary to what was expected that is all. I cant just jump up and pay for any software that catches my eye, I do pay its just disappointing, but everyones got to make their money and I can probably get work to buy if it I can show them enough good stuff about it and explain why I need it well enough.. Really the reason I bring it up is because I dont think many people are very aware of the fact.
Jeremy
I think you are going over the limit by applying that KDE is illegal. You should watch what you are saying since you are a public person.
In any case I don't believe FSF and GPL, because I did not see ANY cases where GPL won legally. Until there is a precedent, GPL is nothing.
Please refrain from using Gnome until it will stop crashdump everything 5 secs. Even windows doesnt crash that much.
All licenses (the GPL is not excepted) are only as ironclad as the degree to which they are enforced.
One of the reasons the KDE situation bothers RMS so much, I think, is that the KDE developers were being so cavalier about the terms of the GPL, and undermining it as an enforcable license as a result.
DNA just wants to be free...
Is that right? If I take a GPL'd program, make a change, and give a binary to my brother, I cannot then ever distribute the source to my change under the GPL? One strike and you're out! That seems a bit OTT.
So why is it that RMS is now saying that because of a previous (possible) transgression that has now been fixed, the KDE dvelopers may have forfeited their rights to this GPL'd code? Seems to me like he's trying to secure the code in a not-so-free way.
License conflicts be damned... If someone realeases their code in an open manner, others should be able to use that code in any open manner they want!
Addlepated - punk & metal
From what I understand of RMS' character, I would read this article as a ringing endorsement.
My guess is that he couldn't care less if GNOME or KDE is better or more popular, he just cares about the license issue.
Can we stop these stupid and wasteful flame wars now?
I wouldn't consider SuSE, Mandrake and Redhat deep pockets, strictu sensu.
Could it be that the GPV isn't as ironclad as RMS and his cult followers would have us believe?
Now, this, together with your .sig just make you look foolish. Incidentally agreeing with RMS on a lot of stuff does not make one a cult member. Neither does caring about the freeness of the software one uses. And you are very naïve if you think the GPL wasn't wrought with fully expert legal advise, something you and a lot of /.ers are incapable of.
--
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
..they shouldn't be flamed for it by the 'leader' of OSS.
RMS is not "the leader of OSS". He rejects the phrase "Open Source" since he believes the term does not adequately put across the "freedom" part of Free Software.
--
KDE developers who took GPL-licensed code whose copyright belonged to the FSF, and linked it to Qt, and distributed the result violated the GPL. The GPL itself specifies a penalty for this action: the person doing it forfeits all rights to copy and modify the program at all. That means that if RMS really wanted to be an asshole, he could shut down Mandrakesoft (for putting out a KDE distribution when they knew full well about this), by enforcing this clause against them (they wouldn't be able to distribute vital parts of the GNU/Linux system).
What RMS is saying is that he is waiving this penalty in the interests of ending this thing.
So when you ask "Who are you? God?" the answer is no, he is the copyright owner whose license has been violated.
If you don't understand runtime/compile-time dependencies and linking, you are really not qualified to speak on this.
Oh give me a break from the holier-and-loftier-than-thou crap.
This is a GNU pissing contest and nothing more.
Where are the GNU folks when people distribute BINARY ONLY (*GASP*) copies of their utilities linked to Solaris libs, or IRIX libs, or AIX libs.
They are just pissed because KDE/TrollTech beat them to the desktop arena.
Oh and about the BSD license.. not all *BSD distributions are based on 4.4LITE releases.
... by a bunch of guys fiddling around with new principles, without a specific commercial goal (though, of course, you're right about the lab). It was used because it was useful, but there was no requirement or assurance that it would be. Bell Labs was rather unique in the freedom from commercial pressures its Fellows enjoyed at that time, and developed many useful and robust things (like unix) in a research environment very like the acedemic research labs (and a few flops, but not many, 'cause the Fellows were chosen for their track record, smarts and work habits). It was an example of the commercial world embracing the ivory tower research model.
If it isn't outright insults then it is implict insults ("We hereby grant you forgiveness..") Come on! WHO ARE YOU? GOD?
No, but the holders of the copyright on a lot of gpl'ed software.
There's no GPL code copyright FSF in KDE. So what right does he have to forgive?
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Well, yeah, because when people are used to perl and ed and emacs, they can switch with a minimum of fuss. So basically I think it is a Good Thing - I installed FreeAmp for Windows once (hey...) and I really loved it's cool clickwrap-parody. It's really about exposing users to freedom, and showing them how ridiculous clickwrap prisons are. My concern, however, is that if all free software was ported to (say) Windows, then users would go like: hey, what's the big deal, my windows comp can do that (run Gimp/perl/apache/whatever). Though then, of course, we'll just quote Aesop and say: "You're welcome to your dainties, but I'll rather have a dry crust with freedom than all the luxuries a king with a chain can offer" (or something to that extent, I forget).
-- boredwithmysig
I just found a great text-mode borwser with dynamic loading and table support, in addition to color and mouse support: called links. It works great, but as of now it holds cache and cookies in memory only. The cookie thing is good everywhere except /. Oh well. Still I'm composing this in links now.
Check it out:
http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~mikulas/links/
Make sure your terminal is bigger than 80x24 (slightly); tables are bound to be wide.
# debian/rules
I do some minor development on windows doing some stuff using MFC yes its the most horrible 's h i t' I have ever used as a software developer. Okay a lot of MFC's problems have to do with the fact that Microsoft is so loosely organized their various departments turn good ideas into SHIT anyways enough of the semi-pro microsoft rant I want people to see this post after all...
:) So that blows. Yeah sure its nice to write an app in Qt but potr it to windows??? Owch.... Ugh.. anyways I dont think they GPL'd anything but the X11 version.
I was looking into developing an app in Windows using Qt, I checked over the spec sheet looked at some Pure Qt programs and I was damn impressed with how clean the programming for it was.
I did a fair amount of GTK programming as well and I must say that the Syntax for GTK can be tedious.. its very well down for a C library but the syntax can get you some of the time, not that it bothers me but learning it was kind of annoying some late nights.
Anyhow my point is coming, I really liked Qt so much that I was fixing to write a nice app in it.. then I noticed something. Only the Unix version was free. Now they are GPL'ing Qt, my question is and yes I have read maybe I missed it but, wheres the Free version for windows?
Most people dont ever realize that Qt is totally not free in windows (as far as I know
Its okay I mean most of you guys wont ever notice.. but Qt is not totally free
Jeremy
Will the GPLing of Qt have any effect on the development of Kylix, which uses Qt, but is itself closed source?
---
I am the dot in slashdot.org
Just because there's a clause in a license or contract, does not mean that it's enforceable.
"By agreeing to this, if later found in breach, you will kill your second son, and name your third daughter Shlep."
Just because the GPL says that someone found in breach of license gives away other rights, does not necessarily mean that the victi- er, breachor actually would lose their rights to the portions of software they actually did contribute or bundle.
[
why does everyone start a flame war over what is meant to be a good announcement?
;-)
Maybe people should focus more on the good FACTS of the announcement
and less on someones personal feelings
"Go get 'em, gnomes!" big deal thats called "esprit de corps"
Can't we all just get along?
Don't bother flaiming my spelling or grammer it will only be ignored
just like I ignored my english teachers
http://Lenny.com
It would be a good idea for all of the authors of code in KDE (more precisely, all of the copyright holders) to make a clear statement that linking their code with Qt in the past was done with their permission, thus assuring existing KDE users that they have not forfeited distribution rights to that KDE code.
I don't understand what the KDE developers have against doing this. I don't see where this would be a liability on their part, and it would simply move their product ahead.
Also, where code was copied from other GPL-covered programs, their copyright holders need to be asked for forgiveness. To lead the way, the FSF hereby grants this forgiveness for all code that is copyright FSF.
Okay, I can see where their in trouble with that.But GNOME is here, and is not going to disappear. GNOME and KDE will remain two rival desktops, unless some day they can be merged in some way. Until then, the GNU Project is going to support its own team vigorously. Go get 'em, gnomes!
Someone mentioned above "this is the spirit of free software?" Yes, it is! This is COMPETITION! This is the driving force behind most people, whether they realize it or not. Without competition, products become stale. (Yes, you can use Windows here as an example if you'd like. However, look at W2K once Linux began to establish a foothold.) Anyway..
I'd like to see KDE included with more packages simply to give people the alternative, if nothing else. Remember that Linux is about choice; forcing something on someone simply because it has "always followed the license" or because it's the FSF favorite is simply absurd.
-- Talonius
P. S. For anyone who objects to me quoting from the article, most people I know who read Slashdot read the headlines and comments, not the article. I think that's gives you a very twisted view, but whatever floats their boat.
My reality check bounced.
Troll tech did write thier own license, remember.
And what freedom was restricted that the GPL grants?
None.
The problem was that GNU is a monotheistic licence. And the GNU coolition has a great followings that will boycott any other license but the GPL.
The above post is one of the most informative ones I've seen!
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Just because there's a clause in a license or contract, does not mean that it's enforceable.
Then just what is a license good for?
Blessed are they who walk among the gnomes, for they will be Free(tm).
Blessed are those change their licenses, for they will be forgiven.
Blessed are those who assign copyright to the FSF, for they will inherit the Kingdom of GNU(tm).
If you truly be followers of RMS, you must daily take up your soapbox and follow him.
I couldn't have said it better myself! ;)
-BRMSG
well,now. If everybody ignores a law, it is no longer a law.The GPL has NEVER been held up in a court of law, so no one really knows if it IS legal anyway.
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
Would Troll Tech actually lose anything by extending this licensing policy to the Windows version of Qt? Allowing the GPL as an option would open up an excellent toolkit for cross-platform development of Free software without significantly affecting licensing revenue from closed-source commercial developers. Troll would get good publicity, lots of Qt/X apps that would otherwise never be ported would show up on Windows (also good for Troll's profile), and all the C++ developers would get a free new toy to play with. Surely everyone wins?
Damn, I'm starting to dislike GPL and it's fanatic followers more and more each day.
It made me switch from Linux to FreeBSD. Technologies over licenses is much more relaxing.
Gnome went beta ages ago. You need not be sarcastic. If you've tried GNOME recently you already know this.
If RMS isn't supposed to think for you then why did commiedot post his response?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
- Qt is free if you're developing a free app
- To develop a commercial app, you must purchase a commercial Qt license
- KDE uses Qt
Nothing has changed. Nothing. (Unless you count the Debian-esque "GPL + QPL == illegal" rants.)Whatever.
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
You missed the point almost entirely.
Take a KDE source file:
kdebase-1.1.2/kcontrol/kpanel/disknav.cpp
You'll read (for instance):
* Copyright (C) 1998 Pietro Iglio (iglio@fub.it)
Take a Gnome source file:
You'll read:
(C) 1997 The Free Software Foundation
This is a major difference. It enable RMS to say things like:
"To lead the way, the FSF hereby grants this forgiveness for all code that is copyright FSF."
Effectively, GNOME is a FSF project, not simply a GPL'ed project. The least that GNOME coders expect is that RMS stand behind them. This is what I expect too. And you may even understand that a FSF endorsed project, with its centralised copyright, have much better protection than a non FSF endorsed one. In this specific case, RMS have been able to give a huge push to the pityfull licensing situation of KDE. This man put its money where is mouth here, and deserve much respect also for this.
Cheers,
--fred
The way i see it, this will probably really only take the gloves off in the KDE vs Gnome battles.
I mean, these folks bicker constantly. Do you honestly thing that having compatible licenses will make everything better? Heck, I half expect to see a statement from debian to the effect of "We're still not going to package your desktop, because we just don't like you, Nyah!"
Personally, I'm riding the fence on this one. Hate the gnome panel, hate KDE's separate panel and taskbar, hate the look & feel of QT apps anyhow. I haven't seen a desktop environment since OS/2's Workplace Shell with StarDock's Object Desktop addon that i really liked, so I'm using IceWM with no file manager and no silly icons all over the screen. (For the record, Ice's toolbar looks like Lotus SmartCenter, and Win9x looks like SmartCenter)
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
Arrogant or no, at least he comes out and says what he believs, and doesn't hide behind some anonymous veil.
I won't even concern myself to respond to the other useless bits of flamebait in your post.
But GNOME is here, and is not going to disappear. GNOME and KDE will remain two rival desktops, unless some day they can be merged in some way. Until then, the GNU Project is going to support its own team vigorously. Go get 'em, gnomes!
That's supposed to be the spirit of free software? Our (== FSF) project must win? What about freedom of choice? Or 'may the best product win'? Yes, he didn't say that KDE has no right to live. But KDE is a very high quality piece of free software, and once two competing products are released under 'his' GPL, Stallman should really talk about them on the basis of their technical merits. Or not talk about them at all, given his position in the world of free software and the fact that the political issues around KDE are now resolved.
This have me puzzled as well.
But perhaps it's to hard to flame something as long as you don't have an politically correct GPL licenced alternative ready?
Damn, I'm starting to dislike GPL and it's fanatic followers more and more each day.
Bjarne
No, its not all resolved. Any software created by linking a `GPL-without-special-implied-permission' component with a QT2.2 library remains unlicensed. An example of such code is the wv (formerly mswordview) code used in the Kword-MSword input filter. Such software has no legal license and therefore cannot be distributed.
By granting retrospective permission, the FSF has rendered all such software which uses FSF-copyright code legal. Other copyright holders may or may not chose to follow suit.
Of course there is now no barrier to futuer incorporation of GPL code. Gimp/QT (KIMP) is suddenly back on the cards.
The prospect of merging some of the better features also looks more promising these days, since both projects seem to be de-integrating some of their components. For example, gdk-pixbuf can now be built without GTK, DCOP objects are not dependent on QT. Maybe Gnome will follow KDE and replace esd with aRTs.
RMS on the GPLing of Qt and More
I would have thought that `more` would have been placed under the GPL long ago...
---
Interested in the Colorado Lottery?
Interested in the Colorado Lottery or Powerball games?
check out http://colotto.com
QT2.2 should of course have read QT<2.2.
Forgot the htmlization, sorry.
At the moment Gnome and KDE are 'rivals' !
...but...
Which is a bloody shame because I like (and use) them both
If both sides would co-operate and make a *serious* attempt to enable both systems to work with each other - it would *unify* the community and hopefully further progress technological advantage.
Now that Qt will now be GPLed there is nothing to stop someone from forming a project whose sole purpose is to make this happen (which both sides are unwilling to do) now that the licensing restriction has ended.
Now that would be something worthwhile to contribute to the community!
It seems to me that a fundamental flaw of Mr. Stallman's open source philosophy is that it implies that adherance to his particular license is of more importance than the overal quality and value of a product.
It's your perspective that is flawed. Aside from the nitpick of Stallman being a free software rather than open source advocate, Stallman recognizes that that the quality and value of a product can (and will) be improved by the user/developer community if it is free, but non-free software, however good, can only be improved or freed by the copyright holder.
The latter case is far more limiting upon users than the former. A good (but flawed, as is virtually all software) proprietary product may in the short term meet an immediate need better than a poor or mediocre open/free product, but the user of the former is held hostage to the whim of the proprietor for any bugfixes or improvements. The user of the latter is free to fix/change the software himself (or if not competent to do so, to hire anyone else to do it), and in the long term, the free product will likely end up better than than any closed equivalent.
Stallman certainly recognizes this. So what you call a "flaw" in the above quote is, in fact, not a bug but a feature.
No, no, no. It ain't ME babe,
It ain't ME you're looking for.
-- Alastair
It remains to be seen in a court of law.
When a judge sees "give up other rights," said judge might laugh and strike it down as overly vague or ambitious.
You can write anything you want, and the other parties can sign anything they want. That's the "gentleman's agreement" that is now a matter of record for a court case. It is not until a judge sees the terms of the agreement, that it is shown to be, or not to be, enforceable.
[
There is a war being waged right now, as we speak, over your freedom. And guess what? You aren't fighting it. People like RMS, the FSF, the ACLU, Ralph Nader...those are the people doing the fighting. And while they're knee-deep in the battle, you're sitting at home bitching about the packetloss on your DSL or how slow Slashdot loads on your new PIII 933Mhz.
This is a war being waged on many fronts: music, privacy, software, gun control, and many others. The enemy is motivated, fanatical, financed, and numerous. They will stop at nothing to gain control over every aspect of your life.
Fanatical, idealistic, unrelenting people are necessary in order to protect our freedoms, because those same types of people are fighting on the other side. You may not appreciate and understand the work they're doing, but I do.
And by the way, I would much rather use free, inferior software than quality, closed source software. Fortunately, I don't always have to make that "sacrifice", since there is a lot of high quality free software available.
RMS does not have an open source philosophy. He has a free software philosophy. He has stated many times that he will use free software whenever possible, even if it is inferior in quality to proprietary software. From that point of view, the continued success of Linux does not depend on corporate mindshare. The the continued success of Linux depends only on it being available to anyone who wants to be free to use their computer.
--
--
E_NOSIG
Moderate that up, PLEASE!
Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.
Allow me to quote a certain interview of RMS on his thoughts of paying for software.
"The only good thing about the unauthorized copy is that you avoid giving money to the owner. This is good, because the owner does not deserve a reward for making software proprietary"
http://tlug.linux.or.jp/rms.html
Read how he interrupts the guy giving the interview and gets all defensive. Someone hit a nerve there. So RMS advocates stealing, good job. This is why conservative corporations are afraid to endorse linux. When you have to crackpot running around saying piracy is good and singing the free software song it doesn't strike a good public image.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Not much. See details here.
The GPL grants rights on a copyrighted work which you do not have by default. It ceases to grant them when you violate the GPL. That it is written down explicitly instead of just being implied should not make much of a change, not even in court.
The Problem of RMS is that a generation of software writers seem to be being indoctrinated to believe that the only worthwhile test of "goodness" in software is whther it's released under the terms of the GPL or not. This is stifling innovation, and encouraging individuals to de-focus on the characteristics that actually matter in software, such as whether it works reliably, is easy to use, is innovative, is useful to the general public or some section thereof and so on. In particular, innovation seems to be as short amongst the free software people as it is with Microsoft. Every piece of free software of note such as the GNU stuff, Linux (no, Dr, Stallman, it is *not* GNU/Linux however many times you repeat that calumny), the various tools and so on are all clones of a piece of "not free" software which in many cases was truly innovative. By "not free" I simply mean a software item that was released under a licence other than the GPL. Some of these "not free" licences are considerably less restrictive than the GPL. At least they don't seek to impose conditions on what other bits of software you use with them. But worst of all, the death of innovation seems to be the result of the polarisation centring around the Microsofties and the free software folks.
Can someone enumerate a list of the code from which KDE borrows GPL code? I see people constantly accusing them of this but don't go into specifics...
But it's only GNU/Linux if it's a distribution based on GNU tools. As of yet, I haven't seen any other systems with non-GNU tools (not speaking of applications such as X-Chat), but it's entirely possible. Despite that, I'll agree that I still like to think of it merely as "Linux" because well... that's the heart of my OS.
Red Hat Software is certainly deep enough to attract the interest of some money-hungry lawyer; their market capitalization is sufficient to give them the ability to raise large amounts of cash should the need arise - as it would if they were on the losing end of a lawsuit. I cannot comment on SuSE or Mandrakesoft, though.
Incidentally agreeing with RMS on a lot of stuff does not make one a cult member. Neither does caring about the freeness of the software one uses.
The problem is that those are the exact terms those of the Cult of the Most Holy GNU use when talking about software. If you do not wish to be taken for a cultist, don't talk like one.
And you are very naïve if you think the GPL wasn't wrought with fully expert legal advise, something you and a lot of
Oh, I have no doubts that RMS got the best legal help he could find when drafting the GPV, nor do I doubt that that help was very good indeed. I simply don't believe anything legal is ironclad or even enforceable until it gets adjudicated in a court of law, something the GPV has not been. There's more than a little legal opinion that the GPV isn't worth the electrons it was written with. When two respected lawyers disagree, those of us outside the legal community are forced to make up our own minds until a court does it for us.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
If KDE is illegal, then GNOME will have to remove the code taken from KDE (HTML widget), because including illegal code makes the whole library and it's programs illegal, isn't it?
You said KDE may not link to Qt because of their license. They fixed it, now you come up with something different. What comes next? KDE is illegal because the developers did not name their first born child "Richard Stallmann"?
I think you're trying to destroy one of the best free software projects for your personal fame and interest and i.e. your choice of GNOME. This "forgiveness" phrase is just your next puny attempt to block KDE, and it's obvious other will follow no matter what KDE does
Once you were the respected founder the free software movement, but now you're only a disgrace for the whole community and have lost any respect.
What will get really interesting is what happens when people submit GPL licensed code to the GPL licensed project? The result is the GPL one would fork if the author didn't give permision to use that in the current non-free edition. Thus if TrollTech does dry up, the GPL one cannot revert to BSD, but the entirely TrollTech copyrighted one can.
--Karl
Then don't read the story. Probably 90% of the people using KDE didn't really care about the licence issue. You might say that they're "not interested" in this story. For the other 10%, they were (maybe only as a spectator) involved in the issue and thus would be "interested" in the aftermath. I'm just not following. Just because a story is posted on Slashdot, it does not mean that you have an obligation to post a comment about it. I don't write a letter to the editor of the newspaper every day and say "why would you have a sports section if I don't find it interesting?! I don't care what the Toronto Maple Leafs are doing!"
"The design of KDE was based on a fundamental mistake: use of the Qt library, which at the time was non-free software.
How will/has this hit oficial packaged releases like Mandrake, RedHat ect.. As a relatively new Linux user ('bout a year) I never heard about this. The whole GPL Licence issue is somewhat hazy to those of us on the "outside" of the comunity.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
Now that Qt is GPL, and templates are working in gcc, there is an excellent chance that MOC will go the way of the dinosaur...
Choice of masters is not freedom.
I doubt the maintainers of, say,
Pine and Mutt see themselves as rivals. They are just merrily going about their business and scratching their own itch.
I would argue that Pine and mutt, for instance, are scratching a single itch: an email program. KDE and GNOME comprise dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of individual programs, not to mention the core components (themselves programs). There's dozen of itches, and each team must do all the same work over, in a sense. This kinda thing bothers RMS (ever read the Xemacs schism?), apparently.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
Oh what a wicked generation of thieves and harlots. Repent now, and be saved. Accept the One True Way(tm).
Blessed are they who walk among the gnomes, for they will be Free(tm).
Blessed are those change their licenses, for they will be forgiven.
Blessed are those who assign copyright to the FSF, for they will inherit the Kingdom of GNU(tm).
If you truly be followers of RMS, you must daily take up your soapbox and follow him.
--1 Perenthians 2:14-20
(this is clearly a troll...i couldn't resist)
Without GNOME, would TrollTech have GPL'd Qt? I think you're being too harsh on RMS.
--
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
Please read the freshmeat editorial concerning the GPL-ing of QT. There were issues with the license. On a side note, I am so happy that this change is happening. I'd like to thank Troll Tech for listening to the other side of the story. You have truly shown yourselves to be the bigger persons. Getting the "forgiveness" for the major packages should be a trivial part (though I'll admit that I really have no clue on the size of such an enterprise), or maybe that code can be replaced.
-- boredwithmysig
Do you have any proof of this assertion? I'd be curious for the legal basis of your claim.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
I agree whole-heartedly. The choice most of us make is not between free or non-free software most of the time. It's between good software which work, and those that don't. It's the reason that I switched to Linux in the first place.
Let's face it, everyone of us is different. I prefer C++, I like to have my choice of window managers. Why do we have to standardize everything? Where is the freedom of choice if there's nothing to choose from besides the default? Why can't GNOME and KDE exist side by side? After all, each have their own strengths, and weaknesses, and I believe they can learn from each other. Even the older window managers have their own strengths. FVWM is small, small enough and light enought that I use it sometimes when I'm running things dat require lots of ram and processor time.
Let's just give everyone the choice to develop in the language they like, in the way they like. It's a good thing Qt is going to be GPLed... then we won't have to listen to the "Qt is not free" argument ever again, and developers don't have to face the headache of licence problems, which, in my opinion, is just a hinderance to the whole cause of free software.
I'd just like to point out that the most successful OSS projects out there are not managed or led by people that are as unsociable and well, stubborn (to put it mildly) as RMS.
Here's TrollTech, effectively surrendering to the hordes of Gnomes --that kept complaining about a great product, covered under a certified OSS license-- and this man doesn't just give a congrats, "welcome to the team" message, but has to remind us the history of KDE/Qt. He's effectively saying "It doesn't matter what they're doing now; it doesn't matter that I have won, that they have asked for forgiveness. We should still beat them to a painful merge with Gnome, because they dared to release software under a license other than my own". Yuck. He may be justified in his beliefs, he may be actually morally right (and I do agree with him on a lot of things), but if RMS was my boss, I'd quit my job in a nano-second.
Look at Linus, look at Larry Wall, the Apache Group (really the prototype for an OSS effort); they have made great software without alienating anybody, much less half of the community. Would you work for Linus Torvalds? I would. Would you take a job with Larry Wall as your supervisor? In a minute. Would you take orders from Brian Behlendorf? Most probably.
Would you want to be in the same code team as RMS? Would you?
So what? I don't think Troll Tech would mind. The way I understand it, there's a version of QT that's for only free software and one that's for proprietary programs. The latter one is the only one currently available for windows (AFAIK), but companies will have to fork out the moolah for writing evil proprietary software regardless of platform, which, if I understand correctly, is exactly what Troll Tech intends. It's kinda like Robin Hood - taking money (albeit legally) from evil (that is, proprietary) companies and giving some of that money to the community.
-- boredwithmysig
Ah, oops. Mea culpa, then.
Is there some reason why the specific instance of use of GPL'ed code is not detailed in your letter? Is it your contention that coming back into compliance with the terms of the GPL for present and further use is not adequate, that some other mechanism must be activated to get back the licensing terms? It would seem that the GPL doesn't attempt to cover such contingencies.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
I think the relevent clause is 6. It states you can't apply further restrictions on distribution. The BSD license doesn't; it just requires the copyright notice to remain intact, same as GPL section 1. the (old) QPL did apply further restrictions regarding what platform your code was written for and whether or not it was free.
Section 3 states that unless a library is a "major component (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system", it must be distributed with the same constraints. The usual pro-KDE argument is the Qt libraries fit into the above catagory.
By "Merged", I don't think he meant actually making the two projects into one.
Some types of merging could be:
1) Writing apps that supported GNOME *and* KDE.
2) Drag 'n Drop support between KDE and GNOME apps.
In other words, you would still have two seperate desktop environments, but each could support features of the other.
Can you tell me something? Did you use to own an Amiga or use OS/2? Your jihad looks familiar.
That being said: It seems that the KDE developers, no matter what they do, no matter what good intentions they hold, always gets bashed by the GNU/GNOME/RMS camp.
I TOTALLY agree with you. I'm a gnome user too, and havn't got a singe KDE-app installed.
But these eternal fights of GPL bullying other OSS projects into submission is leaving me sick.
The word "free" is loosing it's meaning every time GPL victimises another OSS project.
GPL have become a relegion noone dare question, more than a sane choice, as it should be.
I thought the Open Source movement was about freedom. But now we are left with to evils. GPL og M$...
Sucks...
Bjarne
A troll or not, it's a good point to start. Some people may know the GPL better than I do, I don't care I heared a lot about it from people who (at least pretend to) know a lot about it.
;-)
Linking GPL'd code to the QPL is for AFAIK (but what do I know) legal. I've heared there are some problems with some minor pieces of code included from the header files, but this won't hold up in any court (as long as rms doesn't become a judge). The Law is not that black and white (you know the differences between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, the difference between something being wrong and something being illegal).
AFAIK distributing the KDE binaries TOGETHER WITH the Qt binaries is illegal. But who's doing the distributing?
The KDE programmers? I guess not, they are way too busy programming all those nice kde*** programs.
The KDE foundation? I guess not, since there is no such thing as a KDE foundation.
Redhat etc? Well you're probably right, go ahead and sue them.
Me? Well you're probably right, go ahead and sue me
I'm not even sure you'd win any of those cases, but what I'm trying to say is this: Although some people and companies mey have done things that may be perceived as illegal by some people, the KDE code itself isn't tainted by the fact that is was linked to QPL'd Qt in the past. So KDE code linked to GPL'd Qt is perfectly legal.
Johan V. (who hopes to make any sense at all)
In fairness to RMS, he explicitly said he doesn't have a problem with that, at least for code written specifically to be linked to Qt.
By the way, KDE 2.0 RC1 is now due on September 14, and the final release on October 16.
---------
This whole debate has been an eyeopener for me. A few months back, I would have blindly picked GPL as a suitable license for software I create. Now I know that that severely limits the ways in which my software can be used. When I make my software 'free', to me that means enabling anybody to do whatever pleases them with my software. For me this also includes bundling it with software I don't have access to.
Perhaps it would be a nice idea to make a license wizard. Just toggle all the features you want in it (GPL compatibility, the right to bundle with binary code, etc.) and the wizard spits out a suitable license.
Jilles
Just because it is possible to modify and copy software, does not imply it is a fundamental human right, as RMS suggests with his use of the word "freedom". Just because it is physically possible for me to drive on the wrong side of the road, does that mean my freedom is being unfairly restricted by the policemen who stop me from doing so?
And please, drop the "enemy" stuff. Big companies aren't full of evil monsters but people like you and me and RMS, with values and a sense of ethics. Bill Gates honestly believes that by leading the software world, he is doing it a big service. Nobody is trying to oppress you.
KDE has always been GPL. The idea that there could be
source-to-source conflict between KDE and GPL code sounds to me to
turn on legal subtleties that I doubt RMS, pace his status as
co-author of the GPL, is at all qualified to judge.
True, KDE has always been GPL'd. However, the GPL states quite clearly that you can't distribute binaries of GPL'd software linked against non-GPL'd libraries. Since KDE was linked to QT, which was *not* GPL'd, it was illegal to distribute KDE binaries.
RMS did that on purpose. He wanted to make sure that a completely free (in GPL'd terms) system existed. By adding the linking-against-non-GPL'd libraries requirement was in the GPL, he was trying to ensure that there was *no* dependency on non-free software.
Honestly, why is this so difficult for some people to grasp?
GNU bash RMS? (Sorry, couldn't resist)
Everything is but a number spoken by itself.
"The design of KDE was based on a fundamental mistake: use of the Qt library..." I think that RMS intends to say that the decision to base KDE on a non-free library was a mistake, not that the design of KDE was a bad programming decision because of it's use of Qt. If the design of KDE is based on a mistake and Qt is bad, why does it work so well and so many people use it and write for it?
I think that the fundamental mistake is for anyone to promote commercial over free or free over commercial. Or even one type of free over another. In my mind, one should promote what is better - efficient, high quality, flexible, and easy to use. Promoting competition is important, too, so that something that might become better has a chance to. Promoting software with one type of licensing over another is silly because it has very little to do with which whether the software is better.
It disturbs me to think that anyone would support a smear campaign against software just because it is not properly licensed as the 'only' free license (GPL). In stating that KDE "posed a risk to the progress of free software", I think that something even worse is happening - RMS poses a risk to the progress of good software and real competition. In many respects, RMS is the Bill Gates the open-source movement - a monopolist who wishes to control software development and the people that practice it. If it's not GPL, it's not free. If it's not GPL, it's not good. If it's not GPL, you shouldn't use it. Sounds like FUD to me, and that's scary.
Part of the problem I'm seeing is people promoting rather than supporting. The open-source movement is great, and has done well because of the people supporting it, not because of the people promoting it. Zealotry in licensing is, in my opinion, hindering the development of good software. One of the reasons to have free software is to allow people to use tools and libararies without restriction - allowing programmers to build the best software they can. The license for one piece of software doesn't make it better than another - the programmers that support the software make it better.
RMS's statment that we should "help replace KDE/Qt with something entirely free" could have an effect that he doesn't want - people passing over his beloved GPL for something that really is 'entirely free'. By making a stink over 'tainted' licensing and illegal use of so called 'free' software, the whole reason for having free software is being dishonored. If you're going to make your software free, make it truly free - let anyone use for whatever they want to! The only software that is really 'free' is that which is not licensed, not copyrighted, not patented, and has no restrictions whatsoever. The term for this is generally called 'public domain'. If people can perform illegal acts by using 'free' GPL software, then it is not truly 'free'.
Until we live in a Star Trek society where currency means nothing and everyone's needs are met, products will exist that are not free or free with restrictions that are better than the free ones. Please consider the fact that people might want to choose 'better' over 'free', and don't call them evil for exercising their right to freedom of choice! And if somebody wants to use free software in a commercial product, let them. If the software is good, the product will be good, and that's what we truly want - good software!
When blanket statments like KDE "recruited helpers who shared their views" are made, it does a disservice to the people that choose to work on it because they believe that it provides them with something (technologically speaking) that another product (GNOME, CDE, Motif, etc.) does not. Not everyone is as obsessed with licensing as you are. Some people like C++ better than C. Some people think Qt is easier to work with and KDE is more stable to develop for than GNOME. Some people would rather do CORBA. Some people like ultra-customizable skins and fancy desktop decoration and personalization. At this time, I don't think one is really that much better than the other, and hey, different strokes for different folks. But don't dishonor other's choices because they choose differently. Don't tell them what to do. Just present the facts and let them decide!
Meditate on these questions and come up with your own opinion: What makes software free? How do I differentiate good software from bad software? If it's good, does it matter if it's free or not? If it's free, does it matter if it's good or not? Are freedom of choice and competition important?
GNU hackers fear the unfamiliar - years of subtle incompatibilities between dozens of versions of Unix (and now dozens of distros of Linux) have made them twitchy and distrustful of anything except strict GNU orthodoxy. An acronym that doesn't start with G immediately sets mental alarm bells ringing:
"This isn't one of our projects... it must come from outside. It could be contaminated! Un-free heretic! Burn the witch! This is a local shop for local people, etc"
KDE could stop the flamewars tomorrow if they renamed their project GDE.
Nobody, at least not in contravention of the licenses. Mere agregation is not the same thing as linking (the GPL does make an explicit distinction).
The same applies to the rest of your examples. The licensing problems came in when GPLed code (e.g. KOffice) was linked to Qt at compile time and the binaries distributed.
If you don't understand runtime/compile-time dependencies and linking, you are really not qualified to speak on this.
(moreover, your BSD example is bogus; the BSD license essentially lets you do whatever you want -- it'd be entirely legal to link a BSD-licenced app with Qt)
DNA just wants to be free...
I highly doubt Troll Tech would have GPLed Qt without the existance of KDE and the pressure it put on the company to open source their code. I think the developer team should be congratulated for helping further the OSS movement...they shouldn't be flamed for it by the 'leader' of OSS.
What is the problem ?
He is defending *your* right 'to choose' and your right of 'freedom of speech'.
E.g:
Your right to choose what OS and software to run and not be 'forced' to use a particular system...
The freedom to express yourself via speech, through programming code and the right to create something without being slapt with patent infringement...
I do not agree with everything RMS says but I do understand and have *a great deal of respect* for someone who stands up for their rights and trys to do something rather that sitting on your arse and complaining!
You have to admit he has made a considerable contribution to the community (which without him may not have the political clout it has today).
He may have some 'questionable' beliefs but to dismiss him so easily is truly criminal.
. . . his statement and tell us when he expects GNOME to go beta?
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Sure, RMS' missive on the great Qt relicensing could be taken as arrogant, but I don't believe it is. RMS has worked for 16 years to produce the foundations of modern free UNIX, and all of that work rests on the foundation of the GNU General Public License. If free software as he has defined it and worked for is going to thrive, the GPL has got to mean what it says. Any erosion or confusion by subtle redefinition or violation of the terms of the GPL put the whole thing at risk, in my opinion. Would folks here have preferred that the FSF sued the KDE developers for the alleged GPL violations?
Richard has always been stubborn and exacting in his quest for a viable free software substrate for computing, this should come as no surprise to anyone. That stubbornness has gotten the job done to an astonishing degree. Whichever desktop you choose, you now have the power and the right to hack on its internals, to make modifications, and to distribute them without paying a dime to anyone, so long as you grant others the same rights. That's a big win for all of us, and it's an especially big win for the current and prospective KDE community and users. Richard felt that a point needed to be made on this happy occasion to reinforce the importance and meaning of the GPL, and I see his logic. If we act as if the GPL 'just sorta' constrains behavior with GPL'ed resources, then we 'just sorta' have the guarantees that the GPL is supposed to convey and promote.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Why is it that everyone always insists on flaming everything RMS says? RMS has the balls to do what few people in this world do, to stand up for his ideals and make a statement. Sure, he does evangelize, and sure, he does get melodramatic. But isn't that the point? When you believe wholeheartedly in something, and have dedicated your entire life to those beliefs, shouldn't things be dramatic to you? Shouldn't you be proud of standing up for something you believe in? RMS doesn't hold back because he's scared people will hate him or think him a fool, he states his views with pride and doen't pretend to fit in with the status quo. I believe our modern world of political correctness, plaster smiles, and double dealing could benefit from some upfront honesty and true beliefs. Look for a second what RMS is actually trying to accomplish people: A community of sharing and giving. Instead of judging everything he says, we should all respect the man for doing what so few of us have had the nerve to do: for standin up, shouting out his beliefs, then actually spending a good deal of his life WORKING to make those beliefs a REALITY. Whether you like him or not, and whether you believe his ideals or not, show the man the respect he deserves for standing up for what he cares about. I for one know I have never had the stones to go as far as he has for his beliefs.
Everyone's patting Troll Tech on the back for GPLing QT instead of LGPLing it. It was indeed a brilliant move that exposes QT to the hordes of KDE developers while protecting their revenue by charging for commercial development.
/. ID is lower than the real Bruce Perens'.
Now, what happens to the commercial developers who use QT if Troll Tech goes under? They get to keep the last version of QT that they purchased, and that's it. They lose the ability to use the latest and greatest free (speech) QT for their closed apps.
The KDE Free QT Foundation will still have the right to release QT under the BSD License (I hope without the advertisement clause). I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around the licensing issues there: GPL and BSD versions of the same code... What happens there? Anyone?
The real Threed's
--Threed
To use a famous phrase 'He would say that, wouldn't he'.
Having GNOME and KDE as competitors has been good for Linux (*NOT* GNU/Linux as RMS fatuously keeps saying), despite the flamewars that have consumed thousands of hours which would have been better spent in developing the desktops. The cross fertilisation of ideas and programs has meant that both desktops have benefited.
The benefits of programming in C++ (stricter interfaces) seem to have resulted in KDE being more stable, whilst OTOH the fact that more people understand C has meant that GNOME has perhaps come faster quicker.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I think the technique of retroactively granting someone a special license should be used more often. You know how lawyers are always jumping up and down on people about trademarks because of "dilution" rules, even to the extent of pissing off supporters/fans of their product? Instead of sending out "cease and desist" notices, they should send out notices of permission, granting their supporters/fans the limited right to use their logos, etc. This way their trademark is not diluted ("they had permission, your honour") and the fans aren't peeved -- in fact they are probably chuffed.
Getting back on topic, if someone unintentionally violates your copyright license but you happen to like what they've done because it's in the right spirit of things, then grant them a special permission.
Copyright? On this post? I think not.
Look at this photo and judge for yourself.
/*
:^)
He couldn't quite manage to argue that the QPL was non-free, but he did manage to argue that it was
incompatible with the GPL (I doubt this claim would stand up in court)
See this site on this very topic.
*/
I did.
And guess what? There's just a claim that the license is incompatible, along with a disclaimer that can be added to the COPYING file that somehow magically makes it all compatible.
The real issue: an ambiguous reading of the GPL that claims that dynamic linking is a derivative work. It's a dubious claim, and one that most certainly wouldn't win in a court of law (although IANAL) without a lot of legal posturing. That Troll Tech caved in is proof that they were merely tired of hearing the whining. I mean, come on, they offered the toolkit free for free (as in beer AND speech) software because they benefitted from the existence of free software. As I recall, their original dev platform was a Linux box.
In short, a simple claim of incompatibility isn't a real claim at all--it's just bullshit in the disguise of a real claim. RMS just used his position of Saint IGNUcius (which is the most offensive thing he's ever done, IMHO) to dictate what is and what is not incompatible.
Bastard.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
`anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components'.
The point about section 6 is well taken. It means that all of
sections 1, 3 and 6 are required to support the claim that the GPL and
QPL are incompatible. My understanding of section one is that it only
requires that the license accompanies the redistributed source, which
must be available in total. It does not assert that the license
applies to that whole redistribution, though perhaps section 6 asserts
this.
Section 9 is worth a look: it has a `get out clause' if the GPL
turns out to be flawed: one can always apply higher numbered versions
of the GPL in place of the current one. If the GPL really were to
threaten freedom of software, as I think RMS's posturing could well
make it do, then the FSF is free to authorise a new version of the GPL
with a workaround. Nice idea, again a legal timebomb.
Tried out FreeBSD a couple of month ago. Loved the ports. Loved the userPPP. Well, just loved most of the system.
Except, I couldn't get ESD working. Hanged Gnome-startup for ever. Since I'm only using my computer as a desktop-computer, that rendered FreeBSD useless for me. And I couldn't find any help to fix this.
So I'm back with Slackware. But perhaps I just should drop Gnome alltogether and go KDE2...
Bjarne
Now, take the current situation. I can download one of many different distributions of Linux. I can use one of many quality free software packages to run a web site, e-mail, an online ordering system, or whatever else I decide I want to try. I now have many options available to me. I can grow my business little by little to compete with the big guys. This is what I call freedom. This is something I would not have in a closed source world.
As far as big corporations not being full of evil monsters, that may be the case, but you need to take a closer look at who is *running* the company, not who is in it. They are evil, and they are power-hungry, and they are the enemy. And I'm not just talking about the officers and managers of the company, I'm talking about the people who wield the true power: the shareholders. I'm not talking about you and I, with our handful of shares, I'm talking about the people who decide who runs the company. The people that elect the cutthroats because they know they'll make the maximum amount of money while exposing them to the least amount of legal risk.
You have to be pretty naive to believe that there aren't evil monsters out there, and that those people won't gravitate themselves to positions of power. Think about it, what do these people want with all that power anyway?
I know.. earlier when I said "who wants to" I didnt mean I wanted something for free, I meant I would rather pay the price of Qt in windows than code the "Free Qt/Windows" port, Ive done just enough Win32 work to know the annoyances it would bring.
I mean its not Hell-On-Earth as some people would have you believe any windows programming is, but it is fuct when you compare it to some of the libraries out there like Qt/Linux.
Jeremy
I don't think RMS's "go get em gnomes" is anything more than some light-spirited competition. Both GNOME and KDE are about at the same level of functionality. They have thier differences (and simularities!). If there is a "Best" desktop environment, we'll just have to wait and see (then we can go ahead and merge them like RMS suggests). If there is no such thing as a Best, then so be it. Then there can continue to be two (or more!) camps.
It will probally end up being a battle between QT fans and GTK+ fans. unless someone figures out how to merge GTK+ and QT, but that seems like it would just produce yet another widget library. A merger of KDE and GNOME would require something like this, one would assume. As far as merging the desktop environments themselves, well that's not THAT big of a deal. GNOME vs. KDE fans really are only fighting about UI (which one could make more configurable) and about features (most features are not mutually exclusive).
And if someone out there doesn't happen to like what's going on, they can just fork the tree of GNOME, KDE, GTK+ or QT and build thier own branch. I'm not sure how productive that would be, but there is nothing preventing you from stopping it. (especially not your collective egos:).
Competition can be good, if it is FRIENDLY competition. Many folks here seem to carry a bad connotation when competition is mentioned. An ideal way to compete that will benefit everyone would to be try and come up with as more good ideas than the other team, try to implement better code, and most importantly don't hate ideas of the other team just because it's the other team. Borrow/Steal/Trade ideas with the other team, it is open source after all.
Btw. Just so you know, I'm cheering for Gnomes, but I'm really here to enjoy the "game". KDE'rs are my 2nd favorite team:)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Hence, the GPL. As a developer, you can release something as free source, and have reasonable assurance that someone else won't take your hard work, add a few proprietary things to it, release it as closed source, charge big bucks for it, make a fortune, and the user community get squat.
RMS would rather not have to have the GPL (he says so in his standard guest lecture he gives out on a regular basis). The GPL is a necessary evil.
As far as QT and Troll Tech goes, because it was not GPL (they initially wanted money if it was used in commercial settings apparently), a lot of people who believe in Free software devoted time and energy to developing Gnone. And now we have a splintered *NIX desktop world.
If Qt was GPL from the start, if KDE developers chose not to use Qt, then instead of a wasted effort duplicating and re-inventing the wheel, dedicated developers could have been working on a single desktop system.
People who believe in Free software have put a lot of effort into Gnone so it would still be possible to have a totally free (speech) platform to work on. It's no wonder that Gnone developers don't want to just throw out Gnome just because Trolltech finally decided to make Qt GPL....
Imagine if Linux was not GPLed. Red Hat could leverage it's current market share and resources, decide that the enhancements it makes to Linux can't be shared with "competitors" and then prohibit installation unless you have a Red Hat license for each computer you install on.
(Just picking on Red Hat because they are the largest and I needed a hypothetical example. Nothing personal guys! :)
I used to use GNOME exclusively as well, and I'd like you to consider it this way: The owners of any proprietary software would sue you for any breach of their license. (Which occurred with KDE's 'misuse' of GPLed products.) Instead of going ballistic with legal attacks, it is more in FSF's way to talk with you about it, and try to get you to obey the law rather than destroy you. Remember, proprietary software companies do not forgive. I work for one at the moment, and they would much rather destroy you than waste time with you or try to understand you.
You don't know how welcoming Stallman was trying to be, as representative of the FSF.
If you want QT for windows it's closed source for moolah.
If you want QT for Unix it's free (as in speech).
Sooner or later somebody will port the free QT to windows under GPL...
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I think I'll go license-free with any software I make public.
Fine. But if you do, you'll need to do it right. You'll need to say something like "I hereby place this code in the public domain." That will work if you have the right to make such a statement: if you work in the US as a programmer, your employer may have a claim to your code.
If you put out code without any claims at all, then we get the default: it's not legal for anyone to make a copy or a derivative work without explicit permission from you.
The success of the open-source movement does not depend on businesses adopting it. It's not "in the market" except in the sense that movement is in the bazzar. Nobody needs to buy it for it to succeed. The success of open-source software depends on people taking pride in their work and in doing it right, and deriving their sense of worth from that. That the products are useful and desirable flows from the success of craftsmanship, not the other way around
Funny. I thought the success of the open source movement was about spreading open source software everywhere so that intellectual property would eventually be made irrelevant.
At least, that's what seems to be the consensus on most of the messages here on Slashdot. And it's RMS' end-goal.
If "success" was how you defined it, then OS/2 developers everywhere are currently a "success" along with all of the old C64 holdouts. By some measure, they are successful -- they're happily enjoying the fruits of their craftsmanship in a tight-knit community. By other measures, they're isolated from the rest of the world -- their not successful outside of their small group.
There are many ways to define success, but the one that seems to matter most to people is success in the marketplace. That's where the bread comes from.
-Stu
Come again? He hasn't given anything back? That's ridiculous. Linux wouldn't exist today if RMS hadn't helped develop the tools required for Linus to create the kernel in the first place. A Linux kernel would have been a bit useless without a shell, C compiler, not to mention, awk, sed, etc...
Then again, from reading your post history, I think you have trouble understanding the motivation in the first place. Capitalism is work exchanged for some sort of consideration. Usually it means money, but for some it's the desire to persue a cause, achieve some sort of recognition among peers, or purely for one's own self interest.
The reason socialist societies fail is because of central planning where one HAS to do a certain task for the good of the people and not to get any consideration in return.
You might be surprised to learn that I heard RMS in person say that governments that dabble in "central planning" are not good.
And if, in return for his time he wants to ensure that his code isn't moved from some free to non-free state, that's his perfect right, as well as to try and convince others to follow along.
And if you don't like the philosphy, you're perfectly free to chose to use 100% non GPLed software or develop it yourself and license it under any terms you want.
Amen to that!
Bjarne
The reason that Qt for Windows can remain non-free is that it is a separate product. I'm sure it has a big overlap with the codebase of Qt for X11, but that overlap is far from 100%. And in any case, licensing something under the GPL doesn't prevent the copyright holder from relicensing the code to someone else under different terms. The copyright holder can release the same exact code under a million different sets of license terms to a million different people.
Now is there anything preventing some hacker from coming along and porting the Qt/X11 code to Windows? No, there hasn't been since Qt was released under the QPL. I don't think Trolltech is very worried about anyone doing this any time soon, since (a) such a task would not be easy, and (b) no one has made any moves toward doing it yet, even though it's been possible for months upon months.
----Daniel Pearson of the UMBC LUG
RMS is providing an important service to everyone
who uses software by *being* the difficult, nit-picky guy who keeps everyone on their toes.
The software world is a better place for his
efforts, whether they seem over-the-top or not.
Now he takes the psoition that, even when the QPL is replaced by the GPL, the fact that you ever tried to link against the QPL irrevocably forfeits your rights to release the software under the GPL.
Just because the QPL is more free than a microsoft license, it doesn't mean that it's OK to use GPL code in it. Just think how outraged 99.9% of slashdoters would be if microsoft, sun or adobe had done the same thing with software they had written under their licensing.
code. The whole incompatibility issue comes up as a claimed
interaction of two sections of the GPL. The section that is taken to
be talking about linking code against other code is section 3 (the GPL
actually does not contain the word `link'), and that only specifies
that you must make the source available for the whole of the
executable. It is section 1 that specifies that the GPL must also be
applied to redistributions of the code. (There's also a vaguely
worded exception to section 3, which pretty much threatens to
undermine the credibility of that section.)
It used to be the case that people believed that the the GPL was
compatible with any license that permitted free redistribution of the
source. RMS's claim that the QPL was incompatible with the GPL really
came from nowhere, and I don't believe it can be correct. It seems to
me that you should be perfectly able to redistribute the separate
pieces of source to your executable separately, under the different
licenses, thus satisfying the conditions of section 3.
If he is right, then it is likely that the courts would take a dim
view of the GPL. Courts don't like arbitrary restrictions on the
private individuals free use of property, unless forced upon them by
statute.
It's high time we got an legal IP specialist to pass his opinion on
the matter.
That's not a flaw in the philosophy, it -is- the philosophy.
"When Linux led the start of this movement"
Linux did not lead the start of this movement.
"Let me tell you, the corporate world would rather have the quality product rather than the alternatives, even if they don't use the GPL."
Fine - they can use whatever they please! Surely you understand that for RMS (and many of us), the point of Free Software is not to earn corporate acceptance. The point is to have free software!
I believe you're confusing two issues: the RMS "it is always better to have free software" philosophy and the ESR "free software is always better" argument.
While I tend to agree with you, I don't see how it has any bearing on my comment. Not only do I NOT slam the GPL (it is one of the licenses I use, I use the MPL and the BSD license as well from time to time). I merely sought to use humor to poke fun at the arrogance of RMS. While agreeing with some (not all) of his principles, I still find him to be arrogant and condescending (as much of acedemia is).
Possibly the greatest sign of maturity is the ability to laugh at onesself without shame or feeling humiliated.
In Short: Lighten Up!
-c
Perhaps you're forgetting that RMS wrote the GPL?
He couldn't quite manage to argue that the QPL was non-free, but he did manage to argue that it was incompatible with the GPL (I doubt this claim would stand up in court)
See this site on this very topic.
Now he takes the psoition that, even when the QPL is replaced by the GPL, the fact that you ever tried to link against the QPL irrevocably forfeits your rights to release the software under the GPL.
No, he's saying that they couldn't borrow code from other GPL applications without explicit permission into KDE (which depends on a incompatible license).
He knows what he's talking about.
This is, of course, in response to the PDB who Hacked the website of HID INC. One of the hackers was KIA, after getting hit with the ISP's SBS, which they purchased from ISS.
"This is a RM", THJ continued, "Those DF's that did this had no idea of how hard it is to reload RPM's onto that IBM box, and that's exactly what we had to do to FTFM. Fortunately, we found a patch that not only fixes the potential problem, and ups the MTBF."
TRANSLATION
THJ Thomas Hartley Jones, A fake person
DECSS Don't be stupid
AWOL Absent Without Leave
FUBAR F****D Up Beyond All Recognition
BTDB Back To Drawing Board
RTFM Read The F***ing Manual
UA Unidentified Assailent
PDB Poor, Dumb Bastard
HID INC Home Internet Delivery, Inc.
KIA Killed In Action
ISP's Internet Service Provider
SBS Security Bagging System
ISS Internet Security Systems
RM Real Mess
DF Dumb F***s
RPM Don't be an idiot
IBM :)
FTFM Fix The F***ing Machines
MTBF Mean Time between Failure
AAAARGGGHHHH!!!! IHA. (I HATE ACRONYMS)
krystal_blade
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
The attitude you seems to have is exactly the one that makes KDE not a good solution, even though it is free, if the KDE developers have it. But I suppose they have a bit saner attitudes than your.
Free software is not to be free to provide you with gratis software, but to allow us, that is, the programmers, to hack on what we want. We don't actually care about how much you are to spend on it, just about our ability to put the features we like into it.
Note, the above paragraph IS ranting. It is trolling. But it is important - the users-only people are not the only people that counts.
As a Gtk-programmer, I am happy that Qt is GPLed, since that means that we now have two good desktops, and a hell lot of good aps, which can be linked with each other, benefit from each other and minimize recreation of the same code over and over again.
I whish you all KDE developers good luck and that you will have a fun time using GNOME-program-code in your aps and having code from your apps used by GNOME-hackers!
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
It seems to me that your client thinks that I should abide by their license agrement, no? Mr. Stallman believes that certain principles are important, I grant you. He has attempted to embody those principles in his license, also granted. But having done so, others who choose to use the code distributed with that license are bound to abide by it, therefore I believe Mr. Stallman's points about the questionable legality of KDE (in the past) are quite valid.
Let me tell you, the corporate world would rather use the product that provides less function than the one that will get their computers confiscated :-).
But I think you have also fallen into the reporter's trap of reviewing others' information rather than forming your own opinion. Not that you wouldn't still decide what you've decided, but your "Most sources" comment leads me to wonder if the more vocal crowd isn't shaping your report. If you were to do a review right now, you might find that Gnome 1.2 and the current version of KDE offer much the same "quality" with respect to stability and usability, and that the reputation for poor quality of Gnome stems from early adopters' problems with code that was released a little before its time (I'm sure your client never does that :-). I'd urge you to take the plunge and try the "open source" software you're reporting on, rather than rely on others' potentially dated work.
Specifically on Gnome vs KDE:
I'm a Gnome person, but not a programmer for either camp. I see a more robust design in Gnome for componentized applications and complexity management, but I also recognize that the KDE crew has pulled their product up to a similar level, just as the Gnomers have got their bugs under control. I still prefer Gnome because it seems more designed than hacked, and seems (IMHO) to have the better design philosophy but really, by now the differences between the two efforts have become much smaller than they were a year ago.
Back to your point:
The conflict between the ivory tower and the real world is addressed by open source software. Often, however, the ivory tower produces the longer-lasting results. Unix was developed there, and Linux is still held to high standards by its authors (perhaps there's disagreement about how high, but they're there). The difference that open source offers is that if the software doesn't meet the real world needs, you can reshape it. The benefit of the long development cycle adhering to the ivory-tower principles is that you don't have to release service packs as often :-). The corporate world would like to have quality software, but they've shown time and again that something that mostly works today is preferred to something that will work correctly tomorrow. Witness Word vs Wordperfect, Windows NT vs OS/2 (vs a user-friendly unix), etc...
The success of the open-source movement does not depend on businesses adopting it. It's not "in the market" except in the sense that movement is in the bazzar. Nobody needs to buy it for it to succeed. The success of open-source software depends on people taking pride in their work and in doing it right, and deriving their sense of worth from that. That the products are useful and desirable flows from the success of craftsmanship, not the other way around.
GNL GNU's Not Linux!
(Well I thought it was funny)
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
("We hereby grant you forgiveness..") Come on! WHO ARE YOU? GOD?
The forgiveness is a strictly legal thing. Not a personal forgiveness to you as a persson.
source-to-source conflict between KDE and GPL code sounds to me to
turn on legal subtleties that I doubt RMS, pace his status as
co-author of the GPL, is at all qualified to judge.
What really irritates me is that RMS can never resist the urge to
make the worst of some legal hairsplitting. If he just sounded a note
of caution, I would be happy, but he has to talk in terms of KDE
developers forfeiting their rights to develop the code on which they
are working.
I'd argue that there's never pressure to open source code -- at least in the normal sense of the phrase. There's only unique business opportunities that open source provides.
Abandonware is a typical example. This is often spoken of here derogatively, but I think it is a great opportunity for a company to do right by the people who bought its products and to possibly position itself to benefit in the future from an otherwise moribund product.
The business proposition for Trolltech is much more aggressive. They can ride the rising tide of open source, creating a pool of experienced Qt developers and resources that will be available for closed source development. It encourages young programmers to develop with it. Without the open source community, QT would have no future against MFC on Win32, which with the MS imprimatur steamrollers all closed source Win32 competitors, whether or not they are technically superior.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Thank you for forgiving Troll Tech and KDE for committing the sin of violating an ambiguity in the GPL.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
As a professional IT consultant working for one of the Big 5 consultancy firms, I've been working recently on an indepth report on the weaknesses of "open source" software for one of our clients, a company that is mentioned here on occasion.
i.e. He/she works for a company that manufactures justifications for their clients. I expect power-point presentations are involved.
It seems to me that a fundamental flaw of Mr. Stallman's open source philosophy is that it implies that adherance to his particular license is of more importance than the overal quality and value of a product. Most sources agree that KDE is the superior choice of Linux desktop, yet according to open source proponents GNOME is the better choice simply because it is licensed under the GNU Public License.
Definately it's superior if one hopes to enjoy the protections and privileges the GPL provides.
This is a major flaw in the reasoning behind open source. When Linux led the start of this movement I doubt Linus Torvalds say the day when people would deliberately choose inferior software to please a man whose ivory tower ideals conflict with real-world realism.
On the countrary, it was based on so called ivory tower ideals from the start; if it wansn't based on the principles of craftmanship and sharing openly then it would probably have gone the way of numerous other failed commercial projects in a Windows dominated world.
It's a success precicely because it's given away. So called real world considerations come into the picture when a structure to safegard those principles must be maintained.
Let me tell you, the corporate world would rather have the quality product rather than the alternatives...
Well, that's a flat out lie.
The corporate world is made up of millions of little managers who will generally try and take the safest option they can think of, and directed by a handful of exectives trying to control the whole paperchase from the centre. It's all very soviet really.
Corporate mindshare, surely that's a contradiction in terms.
Linux wasn't built by corporations, and corporations didn't show an interest in it until it was already becoming successful. Now (as is usual practice for corporations), they'd like to buy it and feed off it's success. However, there isn't anybody to buy it off because it's a public movement, not a commercial project. Corporations (or rather executives) find this rather outside of their understanding, and commission professional sophists to provide them with justifications for their fear, uncertainty and doubt. We should all wear ties and act like unpaid employees, this would make them happy.
Right, I'm bored with taunting the poor droid now.
you are a fool.
The whole free software movement came into being because of various beliefs, some moral, some practical regarding licencing. For you to now try and tell us to grow up and forget about licencing is ludicrous at best.
As for what "the corporate world" thinks about licencing or Linux in general, most of us really don't care that much, nor do we care about your big 5 consulting firm or its report.
If all that means free software gets a bad rap in your report so be it, but I think that reflects badly on your report rather than free software.
Telling people how they should or shouldn't talk is cult-like behavior. Also, using new, invented terms to either glorify or ridicule something (such as refering to the GPL as the GPV rather than simply as the GPL) is common religious nut practice. I find it vaguely amusing that the only person in this discussion talking like a cultist is the one accusing other people of it.
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
See response from KDE on their site. I think it's right to the point. RMS doesn't sound too cohesive, sort of contradicts itself. No doubt the fact that he sits on the whatever board that supersived all future Gnome development affects his judgement (not objective in this particular case). I am beginning doubting his integrity.
As a professional IT consultant working for one of the Big 5 consultancy firms,...
Whatever. This stuff really annoys me. This is the geek equivalent of name dropping.
Look, the majority of the people here are "professional IT consultants." Most of us have worked at fortune 500 companies at one point or another. Stating something like this actually detracts from your arguement. It makes you look like you feel the need to justify your "expertise." It is just bad rhetoric.
This is a major flaw in the reasoning behind open source. When Linux led the start of this movement I doubt Linus Torvalds say the day when people would deliberately choose inferior software to please a man whose ivory tower ideals conflict with real-world realism. Let me tell you, the corporate world would rather have the quality product rather than the alternatives, even if they don't use the GPL. And since the continued success of Linux relies on it gaining corporate mindshare, maybe it's time for a little more productivity and a little less childishness.
You really should do some research before you put your foot in your mouth. Open source software is generally rated as higher quality by it's users... No, I'm not talking Linux zealots... I'm talking companies like Yahoo who uses FreeBSD, or Google who uses Linux or any on of the 60%+ companies running apache.
Your comments belie your ignorance and bias.
Myddrin
Except, I couldn't get ESD working. Hanged Gnome-startup for ever. Since I'm only using my computer as a desktop-computer, that rendered FreeBSD useless for me. And I couldn't find any help to fix this.
:)
Do you actually need ESD to use Gnome? You probably could disable it from starting up.
But perhaps I just should drop Gnome all together and go KDE2...
Drop those two. Go Enlightenment.
You are absolutely right to see that RMS considers the license to be of paramount importance. He has said that he would rather use bad free software than good non-free software.
It's certainly true that other community leaders like Eric S. Raymond and Linus Torvalds have a more corporate-friendly attitude, and different philosophies. But I don't see how you can say that RMS's argument is "flawed". He just has goals that differ from those of you and your clients.
He may act like it but I'm sure he isn't. With all this "granting of forgivness" all I can say is. Who the F*** cares!? It isn't the lack of GPL'ness that will Kill KDE it is the megolithic resources it requires to run.
X+GNOME1.2+gpilotd+Blackbox runs with
"Survival of the fittest Max, and we've got the fucking gun!" - Pi
I still agree we should avoid further intrusions of important non-free software into our pure hard disks (by important I don't mean simple stuff like xsnow), and Netscape is one example of what happens; people don't even think about this anymore. Someone port Kmeleon to Linux please!
# debian/rules
- RMS poses a risk to the progress of good software and real competition. In many respects, RMS is the Bill Gates the open-source movement - a monopolist who wishes to control software development and the people that practice it. If it's not GPL, it's not free. If it's not GPL, it's not good. If it's not GPL, you shouldn't use it. Sounds like FUD to me, and that's scary.
Yes, but RMS receives no MORE benefit from software released under the GPL than you or I. Nor is there a FSF stock whose value he's deeply interested in. RMS does want to control software development, but only isofar as licensing does. I don't see him ever encouraging GNOME developers to break stuff so it's no longer compatible with KDE in whatever regard.
And free -- by his definition, is software licensed under the GPL. He is merely stating a definition. Whether or not it's good and whether or not I should use it aren't up to RMS, but rather myself. I do my own thinking.
I'd just like to point out that the most successful OSS projects out there are not managed or led by people that are as unsociable and well, stubborn (to put it mildly) as RMS.
/supposed/ personality shortcomings.
Well, except for Theo's OpenBSD, which is very much alive and well, and personally my favorite OS. (I should also mention that he's managed to attract remarkably kind and patient people onto the mailing lists despite his
From the GPL:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify,
sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights,
from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
IANAL, but this does make it plausible that the persons rights are revoked without the option of just "re-licensing it".
Besides, the KDE people obviously snubbed the FSF et al by using qt. They moved things out of the level of respecting each other as equals. The fact that RMS gave a blanket permission to relicense the code is a good thing not a bad one. A lot of people, myself included, might have taken a lot longer to do that.
What the KDE people did is to many not easily excusable. They're obviously not a part of the free software movement, and to sort of usher them in and pretend that they are because QT is now GPL'd is rather magnanimous. About the only favor that the KDE people did the free software movement was to provide the impetous for gnome. Now that that's done, the best thing would be for KDE to bsd their code and go off as part of BSD, or maybe sell out to a corporation and turn commercial.
Sure they're stuff is slick. So are plenty of things. They're not very relevant by their own choices. They're not friendly by their own choices. If it were up to me I'd just ignore them and enforce the forfeiture of rights clause.
There are those of us who would prefer to see justice done in this case rather than mercy. You're rather arrogant to complain about the terms of the mercy granted. If someone less kind than RMS were in charge it would be straight justice.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
GNOME and KDE will remain two rival desktops, unless some day they can be merged in some way
Hmmmmm.... Does this mean we might encounter the same problems as with glibc and libstc ?
I'd have prefered if RMS had not evoked some merge but rather an increased freedom of choice.
I can therefore understand that RMS doesn't plan to throw out the Gnome Project once KDE has become Free.
This would also be a pity so please, let them co-exist instead of yugoslavi-ing them into a unique internally conflicting entity.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
A lot of you /.-ers are gonna start bashing RMS now, for him being so anal about things like this.
I think that's pretty naïve.
RMS always backs his arguments with thoroughly gone trough scenarios of how app
arently small things might cause big effects in the future, like using a partly
non-free system or calling GNU/Linux "Linux".
It's easy to bash him for that, but he might actually be right and I think you
can't be too catious.
:wq!
read term 4 of the terms and conditions of the gpl (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html). That's what's being referred to, I think.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Who is this root-mean-square guy and why should I care ;o}
So, am I supposed to be jumping up and down with joy now that RMS says it's ok to like/use KDE? I've been using KDE since version 1.0. I could care less what the license was. I imagine many people who merely use the software care don't care either. These licenses only dictate what you can do to the code. Big deal. I've never even LOOKED at the KDE code... I have more important things to do than GUI programming.
Eric
I'm glad Qt is GPLed now, and I wish them the best. One of the strongest points of the Linux graphical environment is choice. I guess that strikes some people as inconvenient, but I refuse to surrender my choices in the name of anyone's convenience, even my own. That being said, I prefer Gnome.
Why? The API is written in C. I'm a C programmer. I can and do program in C++ at the office, but on my own time, I use the language I prefer. If someone wants to write a C wrapper for the C++ Qt API, I might consider KDE again. Less because of any inherent advantage in KDE than because it would really gall the C++ crowd. ;-)
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
I've generally liked RMS for most of what he's said and much of what he believes in.
However, this permanent forfeiture nonsense is so nauseatingly offensive, it truly stretches my ability to suspend disbelief to imagine that it came from the (often poison) pen of Richard M. Stallman.
Yes, it is true that violating the GPL reverts your rights upon the code back to what you had before you accepted the terms of the copyright, i.e. basic copyright.
And, yes, this of course means that your rights revert back to the situation where you may once again relicense the code under the GPL, unless the FSF put a "Scarlet Letter" clause into the GPL. Not to mention, the fact that you can do whatever you like in the privacy of your own system--including linking GPL code to completely unfree and unreleased libraries--pretty much insulates every end user who didn't release a distribution. That all does happen to make RMS's "beg for forgiveness" exhortations rather...extreme.
But, what the hell is RIAA-style power mongering doing coming from one of the leaders of free software? Don't get me wrong--unlike those that complain about the GPL, I'm fully aware that the control-or-be-controlled hard line that FSF takes with its licenses is fully valid, and that the strength and correctness of the GPL can only exist with its refusal to suborn itself to less rigorous licenses.
But this tripe about forgiveness, as if users of KDE were under some moral obligation to bow down, tail between their legs, and beg for absolution from their great Free Software Masters fills me with absolute disgust. Even if Stallman had the legal right to call for such behavior--which, mind you, he doesn't--that he'd even ask for it smacks of the arrogance we all detest so much in the post-sale content control industry.
Ugh. I'm sorry for the flamage. Shocked and dismayed doesn't even begin to cover it.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
>Come on! WHO ARE YOU? GOD?
Saint IGNUcius.
-K
---
I'm sure the qt developers will now sleep much better at night knowing you now approve their monumental effort.
I'm just thankful the Troll folks were able to overlook such patronizing politics and do something that will finally and forever put to bed all the bitching.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
I absolutly hate them. I program for a small company (okay, i am the company) and deal with free software on a daily basis. When i made that desision to move to free software, i was inevidetably forced choose a license. Yea, i looked over the GPL, and read the first half of it until i got so confused, i couldn't tell what i could or could not do. So i started just following Slashdot, and eventually came to a psudo understanding of the GPL and all it's resrictions. I finnally got to the point where i said that i was not going to use the GPL in any of my software that i don't have to. Instead i looked at the OSI approved licenses and saw libpng and bsd, and said, "Hey, i like that." So i took from the two the parts I liked and and wrote my license that i use for DWin and Draak (The Orginal Atrodo(s) Company) I did this because license don't matter to me. All i want is acknowledgement that i do write code. What ever other people do with it, i don't care, because my experience was always that people don't like my programs. But obviously i am wrong because people are downloading DWin, and visting my site fairly regularly.
Now what's my point? Well i almost forgot it too, but the fact is that license doesn't matter to me, as long as i can program what i want. RMS gets to me in this respect, saying that anything but GPL is the end of free software. But look at BSD. They have a license that uses something other then GPL and they are huge success. I might even swich my linux box over to a bsd box because i never knew how huge of a cult following they have until i started to look. And the best part is that they spend more time coding then debating about what license to use for software x and is it compatable with software y. One more RMS articale like this saying he is always right, and i probably will install a BSD.
It is interesting how the open source community gets so het up about the legal status of software licenses and copyright. It seems to me that this eagerness to uphold the law, and to make damn sure that everything is above board suddenly stops as soon as mp3s raise their ugly head.
It may seem that way to you, but the nonsense is bidirectional. Many people have their favorite project, and continue to push their agenda with clumsy, ill-informed irrelevancies. Just last night there two completely off-topic slashdot posts buried within the HUGO awards article [1] [2] that serve as a recent example of stupidity aimed the other direction.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Remember, there are only 17,576 TLAs (46656 if you include numbers).
Best Slashdot Co
RMS just thinks that he is entitled to handouts and freebies for eternity without giving anything back to those who support him financially.
RMS gave us EMACS, and delivered us from TECO. 'nuff said.
This is coming from Singapore, half-way across the globe for most of you. I have a personal perspective to share with you.
I don't call our favourite OS "GNU/Linux". I say "Linux", only because it takes fewer syllables. As RMS said in an interview, it doesn't matter much when you are talking amongst us, but it matters a lot when you talk to others.
Why? I started using computers and programming seriously about 8 years back, in school. At that time, I started off using a lot of GNU tools - Emacs, GCC, etc. Yet, I had not even heard the word "GNU". About three years after that, I started playing with Linux. And I still had not ever heard about RMS or GNU. In 1998, when RMS visited Singapore, I finally heard about RMS and GNU.
And since then, I've learnt a lot. I now insist on explaining what the "free" in "free software" means, to people who are still largely apathetic. Why is this important?
Well, until now, people in Singapore have had no need to distinguish between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech". This was (and to some extent, still is) a pirates' haven, and you could get MS-Win2K-Enterprise for about US$5. There was no need to worry about licensing issues or copyright. Now, with the pressure from MNCs mounting, the government has started to crack down seriously on illegally copied software. People are feeling it. Few people want to pay US$50 for a CD.
Now is the time we really appreciate how much RMS and others have done for us. By allowing us to copy and share, free software lets us maintain our cost-of-living. People need to be told of this difference. When they see me with a CD-R with "Red Hat" written on it, they ask me, "Ah, pirated software, eh? Where did you manage to get it?" (now that it's becoming increasingly difficult to get illegally copied software). I tell them, "No, this is not pirated. Yes, it's not original Red Hat, but free software lets me copy and share". Then they pay attention when I tell them, "GNU/Linux can never be pirated, because it's always free."
Sreeram.----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
"...KDE made the mistake... of basing their software on QT, which at the time was not free software."
Interesting that the QPL is listed in the open-source website as being "free software."
(IIRC, they didn't modify the QPL; they just adopted the GPL the other day.)
Agh - the endless circular discussion about "legal things" in software is maddening. What's happened here? RMS claims that KDE's linking with Qt violates the GPL. So eventually, Troll decides to make Qt available under the GPL, in a bid to finally end the endless whining. And what happens? An article grudgingly and briefly admitting that that's a good thing and that they can no longer say that KDE is illegal, and then going in to several paragraphs about how evil KDE was to do this and how they need to be forgiven and atone for the sins and five Hail Marys in the corner please. It ends by saying our project is still better, ha ha.
This is a soap opera. It's a gigantic ego listening only to its own sound. You think they're violating your license? You think this is illegal? OK, then inform them of this. They disagree and say that what they're doing is legal? Then sue them or shut up! Not suing them but instead just being a drama queen is not an option. If you claim to be dealing with legal matters here, then there's a place called a court where these are decided. I'm pretty damn sure that no law requires him to "grant forgiveness", and I'm positive that publically forgiving someone when they claim they haven't sinned is a snotty, arrogant think to do.
RMS, and the FSF grant the KDE/Qt team "forgiveness" for any past using of GPL code from the FSF programs. Is this necessary?
Isn't it just promising not to yell and scream about something that doesn't matter anymore?
If I link with Qt, but then move to the GPL, why would I have a problem? Isn't everything resolved at that point?
Colin Davis
It is very, very sad to see this happen. I thought that the OS community was made of intelligent and sensitive people, who prefer actual programming to flaming. However, while RMS DID develop emacs and gcc, he behaves like a zealous regilious catholic cardinal before St. Bartolomew's night. Common cause? Huh?
There IS a difference between KDE and GNOME, but it is in the practical plane, not the legal one. Admit it, most of the programmers in both project work there because they like it, and they want to share their skills with the rest of the world. Is this free software or what? Does RMS have a copyright on the world "free"? I hope not.
"This is an outrage! It should be called GNU/Qt!"
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
This is not offtopic, it's higly relevant.
In light of certain companies slaughtering anyone who uses logos or devices in ways other than the company strictly intended (Apple, Digital Convergance)
This is a unique and good idea. A tad unrealistic (the engineers would do it, but marketing and legal would never allow it), but a good idea.
A host is a host from coast to coast
but no one uses a host that's close
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
But without freedom, all you enventually get are inferior products! That's the whole idea behind free software and free market and free society. Can't you see what happened to the places where there's no alternatives? RMS might have a personality that is too strong for many people's tates, but he knows what he is doing and he sticks to it. The world may not be a better place if everybody follows RMS, but it is certainly going to be a lot worse one if there no people like him.
The reason why I don't give a damn about what the Big 5 consultancy firms say, is that they don't look beyond this years profit sheet. Damned be tommorrow, if we can make more money today. Why don't we all look at 10-20 years in the future. Why don't we pick the choices that are best for the society, for what's best for the society is best for us. Philosophers have been trying to convince normal folk for thousands of years about this, but apparently have always failed.
I would of course also disagree on what's the best desktop even now, but then again, I am biased, and it would be a subjective opinion, just like yours. It would give absolutely no real proof, it would just say, foo is better then bar, just because I think it is. Or because a 1000 people think it is. It makes no difference. Any subjective opinion is wrong on the face of it.
So why don't you make your choices based on:
With all that, most people would agree that GPL (note the beautiful falacy in my argument here) will create a better computing environment in 10 to 20 years by allowing code reuse and limit the reinvention of wheels. Also by increasing the overall pool of usable software in the long run, rather then having a couple quality proprietary solutions which are better in their time, but get lost and reinvented again later as something else because their source is never free.
Wasn't it also the intent of the GPL to prevent proprietary code from using the GPL code? In the KDE case, it is the opposite, the GPL code uses the proprietary code. Isn't this why the GPL has the OS exception?
There is no problem with XFree86 code since the MIT X license is more free than the GPL. You only get conflicts with the GPL when a license is less free than the GPL.If the license is more free you can combine and distribute the entire code under the terms of the GPL, since no term in the X license is in conflict with any term in the GPL.
This is a very good point. This is part of the reason I use Adobe's acroread instead of xpdf most of the time. acroread is just better. I try to avoid getting PDF files if I can, but sometimes I can't. I make an affort to support free software most of the time, but calling non-free software "evil" is basically wrong and just as short-sighted as commercial places saying all free software is "anti-capitalist".
As much as I like the idea of free software and have no problem abiding by the GPL, by no means should this be the only option.
Woz
I guess this is why Wichert did not give KDE a ringing endorsement and did not say KDE would be included in Debian. Sigh. When will the foolishness ever end?
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Most of those cases are ok under the system component exception clause. If you find a violation of the GPL where the FSF is the copyright holder, do contact them.
I've had this idea in my head for a while, and after reading the RMS article and the slashdot discussion I think I'll go license-free with any software I make public. I think a lassaiz-faire approach where the author makes no claims whatsoever seems a better route to go. I can deal with being criticized for a programming choice or any manner of technical issue with software, but I would hate to mediate arguments over a software license.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
Yep, or as I once had in my .sig:
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
You are confused, Richard Stallman is in the FREE SOFTWARE movement, not in the Open Source Movement.
These two movements have different goals, while Open Source fights for better code, Free Software fights for FREE (as in freedom) Software.
They share methods sometimes, but the goals are different.
>This is a major flaw in the reasoning behind open source.
Again, Open Source is one thing, and Free Software is another thing.
The Free Software movement is concerned about the values in the society, sometimes to protect those values it is needed to use a lower quality software while a FREE alternative is developed.
So, you are comparing apples with oranges.
Support The GNU Project!! http://www.gnu.org
Doesn't the BSD license basically say you can take the code and do whatever you want with it? That's why a large number of people feel BSD is actually free-er than the GPL, with all its viral aspects and restrictions.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
What about XFree86? No licensing problems there linking GPL code to the XFree86 code?
Notice the all RMS is requesting is for KDE copyright who took code from other GPL projects and gave implicitely permision to link with Qt to ask for forgiveness from the authors they took it from and to clearly add a statement that allowed linking to GPL code in past. How hard is it for KDE to do that? Having recently had to contact all the authors in my project to get code signed over to FSF, I can say that it amounts to just over an hour for each of the lead package developers. I suggest they take the hour and do the appology and link statement.
The problem here is that what RMS asks steps on some people pride. They neither feel it was a mistake to use Qt in the first place nor that once they had the QPL license that adding an exception was needed. RMS who wrote the license gave you his interpretation. The exception was needed and he is willing to forgive it as soon as Qt is switched to GPL. Get over it, everyone makes mistakes. It is time to clean up and move on.
--Karl
The man's entitled to cheerlead for his own team, and so's his organization. Quit whingeing - if you want KDE to win, get some cheerleading (or coding) in on your own side.
RMS has been in the free software business longer than almost anyone. Without him there would be no Linux. Unfortunately some of the things he says and does only rub everyone else the wrong way and cause him to lose credibility.
The man is paranoid, but not without reason. He's been around long enough to remember AT&T's clampdown on unix and the fragmentation of unix which came after. In fact these were the reasons the FSF was founded and the GNU project started. He doesn't want to see the free software community and its code become the hostages of corporate greed the way Unix was.
He is a zealot, an extremist. He jumps at the shadows of shadows and cries that the sky is falling. But the truth is, he may be right. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. While I usually don't agree with the attitude behind what he says, I do recognize that ultimately he is simply looking out for the best interests of the community. By taking the hard line view, he compensates for all the rest of us who see licensing issues as an excuse to moan and complain (a view Stallman unfortunately promotes through words and deeds) instead of the critical issue that they are. Stallman's consistent defense of free software against all possible corruption is similar to the ACLU's defense of the first amendment. In both cases their extremism is puzzling, until you understand the historical reasons for it. In the case of free software, it is to prevent another unix debacle. In the case of the first amendment, it is to hold fast and true the rights of us all.
So don't be too hard on Stallman. He is annoying, and often full of himself. But without him where would we be?
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Disclaimer: I am a GNOME user.
That being said: It seems that the KDE developers, no matter what they do, no matter what good intentions they hold, always gets bashed by the GNU/GNOME/RMS camp.
If it isn't legal nitpicking then it is outright insults. If it isn't outright insults then it is implict insults ("We hereby grant you forgiveness..") Come on! WHO ARE YOU? GOD?
Sure KDE is a little cartoony looking but it runs well and is stable. Perhaps SOMEBODIES are jealous?
I really doubt I'll get burned for linking to something with a QPL License. I also really doubt I'll make it to the end of the day without my GNOME desktop crashing again.
Competition is good for EVERYONE. Now that both desktops are FREE it really levels the playing field. As people not willing to sacrafice their freedom before would not even consider KDE competition regardless of technical merit. Now they no longer have an excuse to not evaluate KDE.
I think with bonobo and some of the other stuff going on with Gnome and the talks to KDE about sharing the merged/shared code base will grow more and more.
The first part of your article rather ignores the fact that the development of X at MIT was funded by commercial entities such as DEC, etc.
This happens with a lot of work done at Universities. The corporate companies give them a bunch of money to do some research, and in return they benefit by utilizing the research in their commercial products.
RMS just thinks that he is entitled to handouts and freebies for eternity without giving anything back to those who support him financially.
Having worked in a University environment for 4 years, I understand the issues of funding, research and distributing the results. It's a complicated issue, but unfortunately RMS's attitude is pretty much that of the Ivory Tower academic.
The GPL is most certainly *NOT* a necessary evil. It was spawned by jealousy and bitterness.
It seemed kind of lame to me , the whole QPL deal. This makes a lot more sense! I hope it helps KDE speed along to greater coolness in, um, some way.
You know, I am no fanatic, but I think i owe this man a whole lot, and I sure do wish everyone would stop bashing him for no reason. I was so inspired when I realized that the goal of 'replacing UNIX with GNU/Linux' was taking place in all of the huge UNIX corporations, I had to celebrate!@ Yippee!!
Juln
news into bad news. He couldn't quite manage to argue that the QPL
was non-free, but he did manage to argue that it was incompatible with
the GPL (I doubt this claim would stand up in court), and managed to
convince the world that this threatened the end of free software. Now
he takes the psoition that, even when the QPL is replaced by the GPL,
the fact that you ever tried to link against the QPL irrevocably
forfeits your rights to release the software under the GPL.
I hope no-one buys this garbage. It certainly would make a
nonsense of the idea that the GPL respects the freedoms of its users
and developers.
As a professional IT consultant working for one of the Big 5 consultancy firms, I've been working recently on an indepth report on the weaknesses of "open source" software for one of our clients, a company that is mentioned here on occasion.
It seems to me that a fundamental flaw of Mr. Stallman's open source philosophy is that it implies that adherance to his particular license is of more importance than the overal quality and value of a product. Most sources agree that KDE is the superior choice of Linux desktop, yet according to open source proponents GNOME is the better choice simply because it is licensed under the GNU Public License.
This is a major flaw in the reasoning behind open source. When Linux led the start of this movement I doubt Linus Torvalds say the day when people would deliberately choose inferior software to please a man whose ivory tower ideals conflict with real-world realism.
Let me tell you, the corporate world would rather have the quality product rather than the alternatives, even if they don't use the GPL. And since the continued success of Linux relies on it gaining corporate mindshare, maybe it's time for a little more productivity and a little less childishness.