jhughes wrote to us with the
report that Debian will be including KDE2 within Woody, and according to the article, backtracking it into Potato. Of course, you've been able to get the packages by editing your sources.list
[?] , but apparently this will mean including it in the "official" list.
Slashdot Mirror
Qt 2.0/2.1 was free, but still wasn't compatible with the GPL. KDE remained available outside of Debian (which so far as anyone could tell was acceptable if you considered Qt a system library (we didn't, but the argument could be made...))
Qt 2.2 is available under the GPL. Problem resolved in a way nobody really expected was even possible. Anyone for a ski trip in hell? heh
I am a lwyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
The illegal distribution argument is now, always was, and always will be a red herring. Although it has been repeated over and over again, it is not even arugable as a legal issue, and any half-way capable judge would impose sanctions on the party raising the claim to pay the other party's fees and costs in defending it.
KDE *was not* GPL software, despite the claims of the authors. By distributing and publishing it they altered the terms of the putative license. That is, their actions override the boilerplate.
RMS has hinted in this direction with his "I supose there's an imp[licit permission," but that's far to soft. Distributing binaries never violated the KDE licesne.
However, this does not get aropund the use of *third party* GPL'd code--as KDE was not GPL, it could not use GPL code in a manner that violates the GPL, which is apparently done in two pieces (kghostview and one other, iirc).
The whole bit on "legal concerns" for the rest of KDE, though, was a matter of willful ignorance of the law on an issue that isn't even debatable.
hawk, esq.
The former statement was written in ignorance of how exactly Mozilla was embedded.
However, it brings up an intriguing possibility-the KDE license dispute could have been settled long ago! The Harmony project could have simply had someone write up a spec (which I believe was in the works at one time) and could have written an LGPL wrapper lib to cover up the licensing issue. No fuss, no muss.
Now, the former paragraph is clearly wrong--that wouldn't solve the problem. Or would it? Apparently, it does for Nautilus--the interface between Mozilla and Nautilus has been Bonoboized. What does that mean? Mozilla is called through Bonobo, which is LGPLed, which in turn uses CORBA to communicate--and, as it has been explained to me, this means that there is *no linking* of Mozilla to Nautilus.
Is this true? Is this all that is required? We just use the LGPL library to do as we see fit? Wow...you know, this doesn't seem right, somehow. It wasn't OK for the QPL to give permission to link not-for-charge GPL programs to GPLed programs, but it's OK to write an LGPL wrapper for anything--and link to GPLed software with not legal problems.
Yet another reason I would never consider the GPL/LGPL...
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Only if by "contemporary" you mean "more like Windows". I can't really think of much in the way of older user interfaces that GNOME resembles.
KDE takes a less timid approach to making use of others interface design philosiphies than GNOME does.
KDE is certainly more eager to imitate Windows. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's a dead end strategy when it comes to winning hearts and minds. "Chase the dream, not the competition." It also presumes you like the Windows-style interface. If I did, I wouldn't be using Linux. Windows does come "free" with new computers. (Okay, but you have to pay for it either way.) ;)
KDE has more mature app integration than GNOME
I can't really argue that point. But GNOME is newer, and it is plainly advancing faster than KDE, which is to be expected for a system attempting to blaze new territory rather than to simply achieve parity with a competitor. Still, I'll be glad when I can cut and paste more often.
The KDE UI is centered around implementing what works best for the user, where GNOME appears to do what is best for the developer.
Huh? I think you can make a case that GNOME is friendlier to C programmers than KDE's C++ API -- which is part of why I like it, being a C programmer -- but I can't really say that either system is better for developers than end users. Except for the actual task of GUI design, character-based commandline systems are a lot more developer-friendly than GUIs in general.
What's really disturbing to me about these pointless advocacy debates is the hidden presumption that everybody must be forced into one standard interface despite their personal preferences. That's a BS viewpoint fostered by commercial software. What we need are solid interoperability standards so you can use KWrite, I can use AbiWord, and the next guy can use Word, and we can all use each other's data without respect to each other's software. Killing the competition is only good if you're selling software; if you're giving it away, the competition ought to be more friendly and cooperative.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
http://www.debian.org/~branden/
Here, the official X debian package maintainer has some pre-beta debs of X4 waiting for you, if you're feeling adventurous. Apt-able packages are due to follow soon.
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
KDE2 won't be in the official Debian archive for Potato. Potato is closed now, updates are normally due to security fixes and some others to fix some outstanding bugs that really shouldn't be in later point releases. Debian KDE maintainer, Ivan E. Moore II, will probably continue to maintain his unofficial Debian packages for Potato.
More info in:
<a href="http://kde.tdyc.com/Debian/">RevKrusty's Site</a>.
It should be noted that it is KDE that is being included, and not QT.
QT has always been in Debian; the QPL is a DFSG-license, and QT2.1 is in Potato (the stable branch) right now (I think the qt1.x is in Debian as well, though in non-free). However, now that QT2.2 will be GPLed, KDE's licensing conflict is over and that's why it's being included.
http://www.talknerdy.org
With the Debian release schedule change to around 6 months you could safely assume that Woody will contain KDE 2 which will give Debain enough testing time - which is one of their trademarks. I am also guessing that any KDE 2 packages will be add on packages to potato. I would not expect to see them added to the offical version since its already released.
Hopefully woody will have a nice installer too:
Debian + Gnome + KDE2 =
For Debian users wanting to get an easy install or introduce friends to Linux try Storm Linux 2000 which is based on Potato.
The idea that some had of Debian being anti-KDE seems to have been smashed - it was always a pure legal issue. Ok, thats more boring than the gossip but true.
It amazes me how many people still confuse the desktop with the window manager, and the window manager with the graphics (X) server.
- Graphics (X) Server - draws stuff
- Window Manager - handles the windows on the display
- Desktop - Is the users tools/interface
You can have Sawfish/Gnome/X or KDE/WindowMaker/X. KDE just happens to come with its own window manager KWM.So a desktop is mostly for the average user not so much the techie, for this reason I think KDE2 looks more suitable for the average Windows user to make the leap over to Linux. Isn't this what we want?
I wonder if Qt was GPL what the outcome for the "standard" desktop would have been?
yes, I have found the kde2.0 interfaces to be more contemporary than GNOME's current toolkit interface.
..the KDE developers have a good grip on what others want based on feedback from *other*, more proprietary interfaces. Where KDE makes a great effort to blend in, Gtk and GNOME are unique aside from what one might consider a "standard" interface.
I have found that KDE has more mature app integration than GNOME, *CURRENTLY*; more specifically, KOffice. It's amazing what KDE has been able to accomplish as far as developing the various KOffice apps to the point at which they are at now.
KDE was made to bridge the gap between the average computer user and the power of Linux. GNOME was created with this same goal; presumably, from a developer's point of view.
To summarize:
- KDE 2.0s interface is more contemporary than GNOME's
- KDE takes a less timid approach to making use of others interface design philosiphies than GNOME does.
- KDE has more mature app integration than GNOME
- The KDE UI is centered around implementing what works best for the user, where GNOME appears to do what is best for the developer.
Thanks!I know all the GNOME vs. KDE arguments, and trust me I've been a big GNOME supporter, but as of later, KDE has definitely been coming into it's own (open-sourcing Qt).
:)
Plus, I'm looking forward to getting ahold of Magellan!
Hey guys, keep in mind that part of what we love about Linux is the fact that we have a CHOICE. That choice should definitely extend to the GUI we use, whether you agree with their politics or not.
El riesgo vive siempre!
Note also:
Not that there's anything wrong with the license (even RMS says it's a free license, so it must be okay, right? <g>), but IIRC, it was these two parts of it that caused all the brouhaha.
--
--
We have fought the AC's, and they have won.
Have they asked RMS for forgiveness yet?
---- Click here to flame
|
V
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
Now we can be thankful to have even more choice in the Debian distribution. Regardless of the past, I am quite happpy to see Debian embrace the newly licensed Qt library and subsequently KDE. I find myself switching from Gnome to KDE to XFCE on a regular basis, as I have yet to really decide on the environment I like best.
This will also give a nice boost to the number of available packages in the Debian archive once all of the KDE based apps are ackaged and placed into main.
Marc
it'll be KDE 3 by then...
How Jaded Are You?