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!
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!
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
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...
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.