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)
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
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.
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
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.
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
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)
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?
"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?
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...
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.
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
/*
:^)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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'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
"This is an outrage! It should be called GNU/Qt!"
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
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
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.
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.
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.