Slashdot Mirror
KDE 3.2, To Be Or Not To Be
Richard Moore writes "As you can see from dot.kde.org, issue #53 of Kernel-Cousin KDE has been released, covering only a single topic. The plan for releasing KDE 3.2 is discussed at length, or maybe that should be KDE 4.0 - who knows..."
until Monday Month+2 Day3+14, 2003 when I can grab that beta!
I somehow agree, this should be rated informative or something because it is. But since QT also has a free as in freedom licence for their products i'll say it's good, but the fact that they have something non-free as well just prove their lameness, but still. It's like they are following the rules, but they're not.
To say something crazy:
We all know you have nuclear weapons
. Okey, they find them!
We can't.
okey, i need sleep now, but i agree, thats for sure.
This smacks of flame bait but in case you're serious:
The parts of QT that KDE uses are available under the GNU GPL. GNOME does have the the blessing of the Free Software Foundation, since it's a GNU project, but the important thing is to use Free Software.
QT-embedded and some other TrollTech software is proprietary, I'd advise people not to use it, but KDE is Free Software.
It is counter-productive for Free Software projects to fight against eachother. Deep divides are just what M$ and the proprietary world wants to see. Lets beat them together.
Ciaran O'Riordan
(a GNOME user)
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
> I'd like to see proof with links that ANY part of QT is GPL.
m lt ml
It took me 30 seconds to find this:
http://www.trolltech.com/download/index.ht
and specifically the parts that KDE uses:
http://www.trolltech.com/download/qt/x11.h
They're dual licensed under the QPL (non-Free) and the GNU GPL. When you obtain the software you can choose to use and distribute it under either license.
Ciaran O'Riordan
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
The Qt Free Edition is provided under both the Q Public License ("QPL") and the GPL.
Next time you troll, at least don't make it so fucking obvious, you just look like a moron this way.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying we won't release 3.2. Just that as per coolo's comment (for those who read the article) it may be 4.0 if we find we need to break compatibility to do the job properly. There are a lot of pretty cool things to be discussed at the forthcoming developer's conference and if we decide they should be in the next release (possible but not probable) this may be a good idea. Either way - it got you to read the article, didn't it!
Rich.
Just a note Qt/Embedded is GPL too, this is why you'll find a (fully compatible) branch of it on sourceforge developed by some guys who wanted to add some new features of their own.
Rich.
Errr... There was a KDE 2.2. In fact, there was a KDE 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 as well.
KDE 3 was called KDE 3 so as to show that it broke compatibility with KDE 2.x by using QT 3 instead of QT 2.
Want to develop applications on KDE 3.2 ?
Get the GTK license on eBay dirt cheap
maximum freedom
maximum respect for the community
Is it the fact that they fell short of agreeing with you totally that upsets you so?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I Get all my jack off tips here
Clarification: The QPL is indeed a FREE SOFTWARE license, and even RMS says so. It's not GPL compatible, but that's a different matter.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
And the ability to find, decode and paste together movie files!
Love that pr0n!!
They're following the rules completely, even by the spirit of the GPL. If you're willing to comply with the GPL (ie. release your source) then great, you get to use Qt. If you don't want to release your code under the GPL, then you can pay TrollTech some money and they'll give you an alternate license you can use. Indeed, according to FSF ideology, Qt is doing the right thing and GTK+ is doing the wrong thing. Using the Lesser GNU Public License is discouraged unless necessary. The FSF doesn't really like it, because it encourages proprietory software. Using the GPL for libraries is encouraged because it creates highly desirable libraries that only GPL apps can use.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Um, its not 1998 anymore. Qt has been open source for about half a decade now! Beyond that, it's been under the GPL for several years.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
QPL is also free software. (According to FSF). It is not GPL compatible. So, if you like QPL (Which is free software), you can use Qt, if you like GPL, then accept it and use Qt. If you don't want either of them (i.e you want to produce proprietary software with Qt), the buy Qt from TrollTech (like Opera does with for it's browser, ans sharp does for it's Zaurus). It is maximum freedom, in anyway that you can interprete the freedom meaning. Kudos to Trolltech.
--
I don't know if this is a problem in practice here, but dual licensing only works if you own the entire copyright of all the source.
One benefit of the GPL licenese is that it allows the community to contribute code. However this contributed code is copyrighted by the individual author but you can use it under the GPL. But Trolltech cannot automatically use that contributed code under their other licenses. One of three things may happen:
The GPL-based code will fork.
Trolltech will violate the GPL and provide the contributed code under other licenses.
Trolltech does a nice job and strike deals with all contributors so they can legally distribute the code under other licenses.
Does anyone know whether this is a real problem, and how Trolltech have handled this?
)9TSS
I'm not so sure - I prefer to develop in GTK+ because I know I have the flexibility to use my code however I like in the future. My code is currently all GPLed, and I have every intention of maintaining it GPLed, but if there was a good reason down the track to make a closed fork, GTK+ gives me that option.
Result: I use GTK+ for writing Free software.
uh, no it doesn't. When you use software that is gpl in your software, you no longer have the option of making it closed source. That is what the gpl is all about. Now, I haven't done any research on this, but gtk+ may be lgpl which has some but fewer restrictions. In any case either license forces you to open something. QT, you pay for closed source. GTK+ you get no option for closed source.
Actually, if you just use GTK+, then the LGPL says you can link to it without opening your source. Since Qt is GPL'ed, you can't link to it without opening your source.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
While I understand why you might use GTK+, so you have flexibility to change things in the future, and I personally think that's just peachy, you can understand why the FSF might prefer that you use a GPL library instead.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
It is counter-productive for Free Software projects to fight against eachother. Deep divides are just what M$ and the proprietary world wants to see. Lets beat them together.
Yes, thank you. KDE and Gnome can coexist peacefully.
I happen to prefer KDE's interface, but, as long as KDE can run Gnome/GTK(+) apps and Gnome can run KDE/QT apps, I'm not going to go insulting Gnome or Gnome users.
Gnome does some things better than KDE; KDE does some things better than Gnome. Both are excellent, free, environments that contribute to the Linux desktop.
Dhraakellian
(a KDE user)
I've read Grocklaw. BoycottNovell, you're no Grocklaw
Yes, I can understand that - but the reason the LGPL exists is for this exact reason. If every binary compiled with gcc had to be GPLed, then the FSF would be happy - but only if that meant the binaries were opened. It would be far more likely that proprietary software would not be developed on GPL OSes instead.
While I'm no fan of proprietary software, it does serve as a benchmark to compete with. Netscape 4, for instance, allowed Linux users to have a graphical browser until free/open browsers became available. VMware is now being replaced (by Bochs) and so on.
So IMO, the LGPL should be used on 'core' libraries that provide essential functionality - to preserve the ability of proprietary vendors to create applications on free OSes. The GPL should be used on complex, extension libraries that provide added functionality, because it would not be desirable that sophisticated proprietary binaries could be developed without substantial and significant investments of proprietary source.
Just my 2c.
Firstly I would like to say that I can't get through to dot.kde.org (I keep getting a time out), maybe this is because of the popularity this article on slash dot has generated.
And another thing, if KDE 4 is based on QT 4 (when it comes out) doesn't that mean that it will take a considerable amount of time to re-write a lot of KDE for QT4?
That's why I think TrollTech's scheme is a very good idea. For something like $1500 a developer, you get a complete, cross-platform application framework. Given that a large commercial shop probably payed thousands of dollars for their other development tool licenses (Visual Studio, Perforce, Rose, etc) I don't think $1500 is that much of a burden.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
This is the funniest thing I've seen all day. Mod it up as funny!!! Oh, man... Good laugh...
I use GTK+ because it's faster/lighter than using KDE or QT (if you're not running KDE, that is) and because it works on Windows (ok, not a big deal, but I wanted my program to get the most coverage possible)
I agree - TT's scheme makes a lot of sense - but (obviously) I can't pay $1500 for something without commercialising it. That means the cool features of Qt (Win32/Mac compatibility) are pretty much off-limits to Open Source developers (last time I checked, there is a non-commercial version of Qt for Win32 for download, but its licencing is GPL-incompatible.)
GTK+ leaves open the Windows option, and the closed-source option (note: only for a new version. Once GPLed, always GPLed.)
Frankly I am getting to the point of where I do not care what the FSF really likes. I love Open Source software, I use Open Source software, I have intend to work on an Open Source project as soon as I have the time. Closed Source is not evil. People need to make money and for some programs open source just does not cut it. The FSF like most zelots need to realise that one size does not fit all. Qt and GTK are both doing the right thing. They are doing what they think is right. I thought the whole idea was "Freedom". Freedom often means letting other people do what they think is right.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.