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)
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.
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.
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)
"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.
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.
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!
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."
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.
"These licenses only dictate what you can do to the code. Big deal. I've never even LOOKED at the KDE code...
These licences not only dictate what you can do to the code - they also dictate what other people can do to the code. This affects you directly. Whereas before the licenses forbade anyone porting a GPLd program such as (say) The GIMP to KDE, now it is legal.
As a parallel, I seldom look at the Linux kernel code, and I've never submitted a patch -- but the fact that others can and do results in a better engineered, better supported product.
This is pretty balanced stuff from RMS. He acknowledges that the KDE developers have their own set of beliefs, and that software freedom was not the big issue to them as it is to him. The man has principles, and this time, for once, he has chosen merely to state them, rather than to preach. (When he preaches, he preaches damn well...)
--