Slashdot Mirror
Interview With Trolltech's CEO and CTO Eirik Eng
jlp2097 writes "There is a great and lengthy interview at the The Dot with Eirik Eng, CEO of Trolltech, and Matthias Ettrich, founder of the KDE project and CTO of Trolltech. They talk about the recent X(Free86) trouble, accessibility in QT, Trolltech's finances, Qtopia, the OS X Port and a GPL'd Windows QT - it's probably not going to happen. And, did you know that Qt is pronounced 'Cute' by its creators?"
Eirik:
How do you feel that the license infighting regarding the GPL and QPL has effected open source's inroads into the corporation? Have you received many inquiries regarding a fully unencumbered GPL application across all platforms that integrates Qt?
I thank you for your participation.
Sincerely,
Seth Finklestein
Interlocutor
well, I've always pronounced it 'Cutie'.
The "The Dot" link is broken.
The second link is bad ... Looks like the author forgot the http:// or something.
At work, we went through a phase once of calling people who were doing X "X-boy". E.g., I was doing some email stuff, so people called me "email-boy". Well, one programmer was learning Qt, and as he left one evening, someone called out "Goodnight, cutie-boy!". Man, was his face red when he realized what that sounded like. :-)
I also heard that GTK is pronounced "Gittuk" by the gnome hackers...
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
Another project where the creators don't event know how to pronounce the name of the project? I run into this all the time.
First, mod check--Hello? Funny? I don't really believe it--maybe I'll get to meta-mod it!
Second, I think of this as a strength--if your personal tastes don't lie within QT, you can still use something else. If you don't like VB or VC, then you are stuck with one or two alternatives in Winland.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Despite the fact that I am an editor for a technology-oriented website, I do not understand the complexities of "HTML."
--
Timothy
then GTK should be called 'Gnooteekay'.
Hello this is TrollTech, and we pronounce QT as "Cute"
a la Linux
Someone's going to mention it, so ...
PF: Somebody mentioned that the Canopy Group & SCO owns some parts of Trolltech.
ME: Sorry, we don't have any influence on them.
PF: Do they have any influence on you?
ME: Not really. They have a 5.7% stake in Trolltech
This is completely believable -- Trolltech doesn't really fit into Canopy's current legal strategy, and there's unlikely that there's any "influence" going on there.
However, you can be sure that Canopy has access to Trolltech's customer lists -- If you have purchased Qt with the intent of doing (say) a large internal Linux deployment, don't be surprised when SCO comes knocking and asking for fees.
While I agree with what you're saying, I do have to say that companies like Sun have a point. They simply can't embrace a toolkit like QT without forcing their customers into unexpected costs. QT is far superior to GTK (although Sun is helping GTK catch up), but the Unix companies already did this once with Motif. They're unlikely to do it again.
That being said, TrollTech should continue to serve their customers and develop a great product. Those who are willing to absorb the costs of QT will find themselves with a great product.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
wxWidgets has a huge following because it is truly cross-platform, with the same [free] licensing.
I would be using Qt/PyQt if it had a non-commercial (or preferably GPL) Windows license, but for now I'm stuck with wxPython - which really isn't as nice as Qt, although sometimes looks better due to native LnF.
I don't see the point of having GPL Linux *and Mac* versions without Windows, just because of the lame excuse "well Windows isn't GPL", it really bugs me, I don't want to write free software that won't work on Windows (and I'm far from a M$ advocate).
MacOSX isn't OSS, it's proprietary Apple stuff that they hacked on top of an OSS OS, so come up with another excuse TT....
And before anyone mentions the non-commercial Qt with the book - that is a very limited version (personal use, non-ditributable), doesn't work with PyQt, and is out-of-date already.
Argh, rant over!
#include <sig.h>
As one of the primary graphic toolsets for Linux, and the choice of many distributions, QT being commercial/GPL is a hinderance to commercial software for Linux. It provides a "toll booth" by forcing all non-free applications to pay a fee to distribute these applications. This forces non-free developers to charge more to pay for these fees, as well as stopping closed-source "freeware." Since KDE is used so widely and known to many as the linux desktop, it makes sense to have a LGPL QT implementation. The GPL should keep applications free, but drastically hinders adoptation as a standard for use in all applications.
'Gnooteekay'. It sounds somewhat sillier.
I feel much relieved now...
There seems to be no undisputed linux anything. This can be a good thing because it encourages competition and allows people to go in different directions, but it also has the detrimental effect of not having any project be the best it could be because it doesn't have the entire community working on it.
_____
Thank you.
Nice try : a failed pre-emptive strike, though.
:
More specific questions remain
The real questions are
1) What is Ralph J. Yarro of Canopy infamy doing on the Trolltech board of directors? Sorry, sitting on the board means "influence".
2) What is financial relationship between SCO/Canopy and Trolltech? Specificly: does Trolltech owe money to SCO/Canopy, does Canopy have contractual rights to seats on the board? Does SCO/Canopy have warrants or other agreements to take control of Trolltech later?
Sadly, a QT standard on Linux DOES fit into Canopy's strategy for market share. Especially if they can invoke ownership or control of Trolltech on a later date.
"MacOSX isn't OSS, it's proprietary Apple stuff that they hacked on top of an OSS OS"
Wow, did you actually write that stupid sentence?
If I am not wrong you need to buy seperate s/w for that kind of thing in windows . ( windows users correct me if I am wrong).
Besides adding accessibility features makes KDE very much a candidate for use in Govt. work and any other place where accessibility features are a must.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
That's quite an facile editorial but you can't expect better from normal users. My screenshot looks better than yours. Evolution is better than KMail, GNOME looks more polished than KDE and so on. I do use XChat, Abiword, Rhythmbox.... ...usually you get stuff like these from normal users. And this is ok since you can't blame them for stuff they simply don't know about or don't have a slighest knowledge about.
Such editorials are hard to take serious since they are build up on basicly NO deeper knowledge of the matter. Most people I met so far are full of prejudices and seek for excuses or explaination why they prefer the one over the other while in reality they have no slightest clue on what parameters they compare the things.
If people do like the gance ICONS over the functionality then it's quite ok but that's absolutely NO framework to do such comparisons.
I do come from the GNOME architecture and spent the last 5 years on it. I also spent a lot of time (nearly 1 year now if I sum everything up) on KDE 3.x architecture including the latest KDE 3.2 (please note I still do use GNOME and I am up to CVS 2.6 release myself).
Although calling myself a GNOME vetaran I am also not shy to criticise GNOME and I do this in the public as well. Ok I got told from a couple of people if I don't like GNOME that I simply should switch and so on. But these are usually people who have a tunnelview and do not want to see or understand the problems around GNOME.
Speaking as a developer with nearly 23years of programming skills on my back I can tell you that GNOME may look polished on the first view but on the second view it isn't.
Technically GNOME is quite a messy architecture with a lot of unfinished, half polished and half working stuff inside. Given here are examples like broken gnome-vfs, half implementations of things (GStreamer still half implemented into GNOME (if you can call it an implementation at all)) rapid changes of things that make it hard for developers to catch up and a never ending bughunting. While it is questionable if some stuff can simply be fixed with patches while it's more required to publicly talk about the Framework itself.
Sure GNOME will become better but the time developers spent fixing all the stuff is the time that speaks for KDE to really improve it with needed features. We here on GNOME are only walking in the circle but don't have a real progress in true usability (not that farce people talk to one person and then to the next). Real usability here is using the features provided by the architecture that is when I as scientists want to do UML stuff that I seriously find an application written for that framework that can do it. When I eye over to the KDE architecture then as strange it sounds I do find more of these needed tools than I can find on GNOME. This can be continued in many areas where I find more scientific Software to do my work and Software that works reliable and not crash or misbehave or behave unexpected.
Comparing Nautilus with Konqueror is pure nonsense, comparing GNOME with KDE is even bigger nonsense. If we get a team of developers on a Table and discuss all the crap we find between KDE and GNOME then I can tell from own experience that the answer is clearly that GNOME will fail horrible here.
We still have many issues on GNOME which are Framework related. We now got the new Fileselector but yet they still act differently in each app. Some still have the old Fileselector, some the new Fileselector, some appearance of new Fileselectors are differently than in other apps that use the new Fileselector code and so on. When people talk about polish and consistency, then I like to ask what kind of consistency and polish is this ? We still have a couple of different ways to open Window in GNOME.
- GTK-Application-Window,
- BonoboUI Window,
- GnomeUI Window,
Then a lot of stuff inside GNOME are hardcoded UI's, some are using *.glade files (not to mention that GLADE the interface buil
Enough said.
I feel Trolltech dodged the issue. Again.
Having SCO/Canopy representatives on the Board of Directors means the don't have influence on Trolltech? Why didn't he mention this in his answer? What is he trying to hide? I think we need a better explanation.
Again, Trolltech has blown another opportunity to spell out exactly what their realtionship to SCO/Canopy. Warrants? Debt? Contractual obligations? Spell it out! "Not Really" is NOT GOOD ENOUGH !!!
I don't feel releived. I'm still quite unsettled by their dodging the issue.
These are legit. questions. Not flamebait.
Trolltech should explain in specifics, not hand wave on generalities.
I am a developer who believes in cross-platform development. However, I do most of my development in a Windows environment. I write code in Windows, test in Windows, and release it from Windows, and everything I've worked on is OSS. However, according to Trolltech, I don't exist. Why do they assume that because the OS I happen to develop on isn't open source there isn't an open source community in that niche? They comment that most Windows users perfer shareware, however, that is not the case. I find that there are a number of Windows users who are wanting to use open source programs for their own work and yet here Qt is preventing us from using their tools because they feel the users aren't there. I find this an unfortunate development.
A little learning never hurt anyone.
> a GPL'd Windows QT - it's probably not going to happen.
Well, sort of. At the very least, it won't be done with Trolltech's support.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
It has to be said, but wxWidgets (formerly wxWindows) can turn into a total mess sometimes, due to its dependancy on the local OSs widgets. ie: You'll find its feature set is usually a lowest common denominator due to limits of one or more ports, and things often will work differently base don the port. Certainly, many ports are not useful, though the wxWidgets peopel valiently claim they are. (I really like the wxWidgets people, and theyr'e doing great work, but they really should stop claiming the thing is stable on anything other than Unix/GTK; The windows one isn't bad until you get into the serious parts, like localization. The Mac one is entirely broken.)
Groknards.
I hear that... I'm just now starting to work on a project I'm coding in Python. I'd love to use PyQT, but one of my reasons for using Python is the portability. Why the hell would I choose a a cross-platform windowing API that is free (for non-commercial) for all but the OS family with the largest market share?
Yes, yes, it's their code and they can choose to do whatever they want with it. Well, I'll choose to use wxWindows instead...
It just kills me that they justify their GPL'd releases for Linux and MacOS X by helping the Free software community and yet it appears to be a completely alien idea to them (according to the interview) that just maybe there are some GPL developers out there that want to release software that runs on MS Windows.
" just because of the lame excuse "well Windows isn't GPL""
That's _NOT_ the reason they give. The reason they gave is that too many commercial companies used the GPL version of the library in their commercial software instead of using the pricy commercial version of the library, and they said it's impossible to go and sue all of them.
^_^
Let the world vote - which scandiavian country is best on open source? Norway (Qt), Sweden (Mysql) or perhaps Finland (you know who...). What is Denmark doing, btw...?
Better than having something that's "micro" and "soft".
< Ronald Regan Cold War Era Voice > /Ronald Regan Cold War Era Voice >
Mr. Eng,....tear...down.. this... wall!
<
Qt has a non-commercial windows license. It is basically the GPL with the added restriction that you cannot use it at your place of employment. That sounds reasonable. Hack stuff together as a hobby if you want, but if you need Qt at work, your employer should buy a license for it.
I got a copy of Qt with the book "C++ Programming with Qt3"
It looks pretty slick. I won't use it at work but everything else is fair game.
More music, fewer hits
Isn't the idea of Qt to avaid the proprietary aspects of OS X, which would be the interface. If it runs similarly on the "free" version, isn't it free from the proprietary aspects? Similar to the comments on Java earlier today, if the code is tied to non-free parts of the OS, then the tools cannot be free, and the potential forr costs being incured by TrollTech are a possibility.
Yeah right. Linux also won't get a widespread adoption because it uses same predatory licence...
BTW, licence didn't stop Opera from using QT on Linux. I haven't heard about any popular commercial GTK-software...
"EE (laughing): As some people mentioned on the dot, it has partly to do with finances, sales and Trolltech's business model. Another point is the fact that Windows is a closed source Operating System. There is no community for Free Software development under Windows."
n Office
Well it sure as hell will not evolve using QT! This is just a load of monkey muffins. I use
Eclipse
Netbeans
FireFox
Thunderbird
Ope
Perl
Python
DevCpp
GCC
and MySql on my windows box. No free software comunity by butt.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Feel free to call it whatever you like, but don't expect your end-users to use a potentially suprising pronunciation. If someone reading your name in print is going to come to a different conclusion, you've probably got a problem. I certainly hear lots of 'Ess-Queue-Ell' instead of Sequel for SQL. There's the ever popular Tex and Latex with the surprising Tech and La-Tech. (And for some reason people get really touchy over that one.) And so Cute is, well, cute, but expect lots of Queue-Tee (or more likely, Cutie).
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Aqua isn't open source software, but Apple does contribute back to the free software world with it's patches to khtml and kjs through it's collobration with the KDE project for the development of their safari web browser. that's more than microsoft can claim.
Will Stokes Album Shaper http://albumshaper.sf.net
Canopy is not on the Trolltech board of directors and you know it. All they have is a 5.7% investment in Trolltech.
Now sod off with your GNOME fud.
Not sure what you mean, there - there's lots of toolkits that run on Windows (including, of course, the superb wxWidgets), and almost all of them have script language bindings if you don't like C/C++, and almost all of those scripting languages run on Windows. It's true that _most_ windows apps are writting with Visual Studio or VB, but not all. And it certainly doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of other options.
...ICSharpCode.Net, which has the GPL's Sharpdevelop IDE for .NET
Finding God in a Dog
No widespread use in Linux? Last I checked, KDE uses QT. How many Linux distributions distribute KDE? Probably all the major ones.
What real reasons are there for QT to change it's licensing for the Windows platform? The interview clearly states why they won't. Your logic makes no sense to me. Someone who embraces the predatory licensing of MS-Windows will be afraid of the licensing of non-Free QT? I doubt it. If someone doesn't like non-Free QT license, but will tolerate MS licensing, then they have some weird conflicting views.
Your insight about the QT logo is a bit off the wall, if you ask me. read into it what you want, though.
The non-commercial version also puts a big "[Non-commercial]" in the title of every window. What's worse, you have to use Borland (on the book CD) or Microsoft's C compiler, either meaning I need to pay for VC.net or use a compiler which doesn't handle C++ templates correctly and breaks STL/Boost/Loki-type stuff. For just goofing around, it is ok, but it looks like I'll have to move to Linux to get anything decent written.
The non-commercial license is very different from the GPL.
point.
From the article, discussing the MS Windows licensing decision, "Another point is the fact that Windows is a closed source Operating System. There is no community for Free Software development under Windows. The situation is very different from Linux, as you know. On Windows development usually happens as shareware or commercial software and we don't see that community evolving into producing Free Software."
Can you point me to a document where Trolltech states that they don't have a Free MS Windows version due to an umanageable amount of license policing?
Talking with a Sun employee, I got the rather strong impression that Sun chose GTK+ because they only had C and Java guys.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
My theory: In Norwegian, q is pronounced "ku", and t is pronounce "te", which when said in English becomes "cute".
Well, the goal of the GPL is to expand the availability of Free (as in freedom) software, not to be "a standard for use in all applications."
...and IN SOVIET RUSSIA, beowulf clusters imagine 1, 2, 3 profit!!!! jokes made out of YOU!!!
Why are people marking this flamebait. It's a fact, the unix world has too many choices.
VB and VC might not be perfect, but ask any real developers. Tell them you develop windows gui using anything else and you might not even have a job next.
Where are all these wxWidgets freaks coming from. Did the name change suddenly confer mass popularity on the project or something?
To date, I have yet to see any X11 software that used wxWidgets besides one dialog editor for wxWidgets. Maybe its doing gangbusters in Windows land, but it's an unknown in my world.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
The release in C++ GUI Programming with Qt 3 is not too bad. There is a little hacking to do if you want to use the free Borland compiler with threads. Also cygwin is a must. Once these two things are done, it's easy to develop on Linux and port the final app to windows.
"Enterprise features", like activeX controls, are not in the book release.
There is a GPL Windows port in the works...not from trolltech, but from here.
I think the enterprise license for the Windows release, necessary if you want to use the advanced features of Qt or are doing closed source work, is about $2500 a year (per developer) and about $400 a year (per developer) after that for license maintenance.
It's a nice toolkit. It could be better, the documentation is a little weak in places, some the objects are malformed, they don't use enough STL.
Beyond this, just being able to search on the web for the solutions to common problems is just great.
Personally, I don't care if it's not GPLd under Windows. People who pay for pain won't mind paying for some more! As I say, you can develop and demo under linux for free, and port to windows later...watch out for enterprise or professional only features...they will be missing from the book version.
People are realizing that there are lots of apps using wxWidgets, it's just not very apparent because... well, it looks like native GUIs for the platforms. Which is good! BitTorrent uses wx, so does Audacity, Forte Agent...
Yes, I know that Qt is pronounced as "Cute", but I refuse to pronounce it like that. It's hard enough to get Management to take it seriously as it is, since it lacks an IDE, but calling it "cute" would have gotten me 100% ignored.
Calling Qt "cute" also makes conversation about it with outsiders obnoxious, as people think I'm using an adjective instead of a noun. It's just easier in all respects to stress both letters (cue tee).
I haven't heard about any popular commercial GTK-software...
Off the top of my head, the "current" commerical GTK apps include Applixware, Gobe Productive, Yahoo Messenger, Sentry BullDog, Netscape, and Eclipse's SWT. The gist of your post is right though, there are more commercial apps using QT than GTK on Linux. However, forget about those two because the current king of commericial GUIs on Linux is (still) boring old Motif!
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
After the Swing API has been successfully ported on top of SWT (SwingWT) - why not a Swing API on top of QT? SwingQT would be a useful step for both, Java and QT.
There is already a QtAWT but Swing on top of the QtPeers is still just Swing, not Qt.
"nth" isnt a word, it's a mathematical shorthand. Ie; "The nth term is described by n^2+(n-1)", or some such. The n of course stands in for some arbitrary whole number.
It's not a word in english, and if you're using it in scrabble you're a dirty, smelly cheater who deserves a hand full of "Q"s with no "U"s.
Then again, if you allow "nth" you probably allow "QED", which opens up the door to latin acronymns in which case, fuck it, any random assortment of letters is a "word".
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The fact remains that there is a version of Qt available under the GPL -- and, therefore, in source code form. Anybody could quite legitimately port that to Windows, as long as it was released under the GPL {or not released at all, just used within an organisation}. Sure, it would take a bit of effort, but that's the only obstacle. Trolltech cannot do anything legally to prevent you from doing it.
I think it's absolutely pathetic the way all these Windows fanboys bitch about the way Trolltech hasn't released a GPL version of Qt for windows. Nothing is stopping them doing what we in the GNU/Linux community have already done for ourselves, and writing their own. But the truth is the only kind of software the Windows users really know or care about writing is worms and viruses -- and even then they only manage that with a lot of help from Microsoft. They're quite content to eat the shit they get fed, because they know it would be too much like hard graft to try changing it.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
What's worse is that the non-commercial Qt that comes with the book doesn't have a PyQt to go with it as the Riverbank guys are stick-in-the-muds like Trolltech!
The Qt/PyQt that comes with BlackAdder is about as close as you can get to non-commercial Py/Qt, but that's $80+ and crippled (and is Python-only) and non-distributable.
If you want the PyQt for Windows DLL's though, try here (the support files for BA!):
http://www.smga3000.com/thekompany/BAdemo/
#include <sig.h>
You look at windows and Visual Basic and Visual C, those are all anyone would ever need in windows land.
Wrong. There are plenty of non-Microsoft tools available. To name a few open source or OSS-friendly tools: ActivePerl, MinGW, CygWin, Visual-MinGW, GTK+, Eclipse, Java/NetBeans, et al. I use most of those to develop Windows applications rather than Microsoft's offerings. The only thing missing is a good GUI toolkit that is open source (sorry, Java GUIs are fugly), or at least open-source compatible, and Qt fits the bill. Unfortunately, TrollTech refuses to release a free version for Windows because there is no community (bullshit) and trolls like you think Microsoft makes the only decent Windows tools (bullshit).
If projects like OpenOffice and Mozilla can have faith in Windows users and developers, why not TrollTech? TrollTech could help the OSS community make huge strides toward Linux adoption if they would help bridge the gap.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
this is a known troll. please mod accordingly.
Life is offtopic.
Philippe, thanks for verbing the word transcript, when there was already a perfectly serviceable verb form: transcribe.
Anyway, I thought everyone knew it was pronounced "cute," though I always thought it should be "cutie." (Comeon, QT, Que Tee, cutie, right?)
-Peter
I was thinking of installing BitTorrent on my system. That would have made one wxWidgets/GTK (or possibly wxWidgets/OpenMotif) application on my FreeBSD system. Since I'm not interested in the others listed at wxWidgets, it's still trailing behind FOX and FLTK.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Microsoft has one of the best public images of any company. So their name must be at least SOMEWHAT good. Of course this does not include the opinions of slashbots.
But in Dutch, his last name is quite scary....
I know that some people are against having Windows versions of OSS software, but I don't agree. It is important to get Windows users to use cross-platform stuff like OOo and Mozilla. This will help prepare them to switch to another OS when the time is right for them.
The same could be said for developers. If Qt was a viable option for Windows developers then many would use it and they would be better prepared for, and more likely to switch to, another OS.
This seems like a fairly straight-forward argument, which is why many important OSS projects make a big effort to work on Windows as well as Linux. I realize though, that none of this is within TT's mandate. They are a company, not a project, so their job is to make money. Sometimes this coincides with doing what is best for the OSS and Linux communities, but I am amazed at how often this is not the case.
So, though I am a C++ developer, and I believe that Qt is much better than GTK, I'll have to side with GTK for Linux.
"The reason they gave is that too many commercial companies used the GPL version of the library in their commercial software instead of using the pricy commercial version of the library, and they said it's impossible to go and sue all of them."
I could find no such reference in the section of the interview talking about a GPL'd version for Windows.
The actual reason given was incoherent and completely meaningless. If they had just come right out and said, "we make the vast majority of our money by requiring Windows developers for pay for licenses, and we don't want to lose that revenue," then they would have put the question to rest. Instead, they sidestepped the question entirely.
I work for county government, and I produce software for internal use only. Management was perfectly willing to license all internally developed software under the GPL. All our users are on Windows, so the Windows versions was the only Qt option that was viable.
Since I am so proficient with Qt, the county bought a Windows license for me last year. I do all my development on Linux, then recompile on Windows using the Borland free command line compiler.
I am the only developer in the county who is familiar with Qt, and the only developer who primarily uses Linux. I have been in love with the Qt API since day one. The others develop entirely on Windows.
Qt got the official boot at work for a couple reasons:
1) No Windows IDE. Having to pay for a full IDE (Visual Studio or C++ Builder), then having to pay for Qt licenses on top of that is a ridiculous proposition. And the poor integration with them both is a non-starter. This is by far the biggest reason Qt lost to C++ Builder.
2) We don't make any money off of software development. It is necessary for us to create software to support our internal processes, but that software is useless to anyone but us. Given Qt's lack of an IDE (which we could work around), the fact that it was going to cost us at least as much as C++ Builder (which has a full IDE), and twice as much under some circumstances, there was absolutely no way the boss was going to standardize on Qt.
Trolltech is badly fumbling the ball here. The only reason that Qt gained the following that it has on Linux is because it's Free/free for writing GPL'd applications. Being a great toolkit was not enough. Qt gained an Open Source following because of the license.
I can't believe that Trolltech people actually said that the main reason they don't GPL Qt for Windows is because there is no Open Source community under Windows. That's backward logic.
The real reason there is no Open Source Qt community under Windows is because there's no GPL'd Qt under Windows. Duh!
The Windows Open Source community would materialize the moment Qt were GPL'd under Windows. A large part of that would be a melding of the Linux community with the Windows community.
I don't know _any_ apps made with either FOX or FLTK. Certainly nothing with the userbase of bittorrent or xmule. So maybe it's only trailing _for you_.
Even if we can trust Trolltech today, we have no idea what will happen to the company tomorrow. Will Microsoft buy them for $1 billion? Will Trolltech pull a SCO, following a change in leadership?
The fact is, we don't know.
So the issue is _not_ whether we can trust Trolltech today.
The issue is avoiding the _need_ for trust.
For example, if your company uses Windows, and Windows applications, then you are trusting Microsoft not to screw you (fat chance).
But if your company uses Linux, and Open Source applications, then there is no need for trust -- if one Linux supplier misbehaves, then you can switch to another, or even fork the code yourself.
Thus, with proprietary software, you _cannot_ switch suppliers, so you are relying on trust.
But with Open Source software, you _can_ switch suppliers, so are protected, even if your trust in one suppliers fails.
And the fact is, the proprietary version of Qt is just that -- proprietary. You cannot fork it, and you cannot switch suppliers.
In other words, if you use proprietary Qt, and proprietary-Qt-based applications, then you are putting all your trust in Trolltech. You are using proprietary software, and you are crossing your fingers.
Alternatively, you can use Open Source software, and enjoy all the freedom and protection that comes with it.
how would you pronounce eieio?
This gets a +1: Interesting?! Calling anyone who writes software for 90% of the computer-using public criminals? This may be the most personally insulting thing I've ever read on Slashdot. Nice keyboard courage, there, buddy.
This sig intentionally left blank.
Investigate wxWidgets.
and just how do you know TT ownes scox shares? hmmmm?????
I did not write the grandparent post but it is well known on the qt-interest mailing list (run by Trolltech) that the reason there's no GPL'ed version of Qt for Windows is exactly the reason given in the grandparent post.
I find it strange that you wish Qt came with a Windows IDE. I see these as entirely separate products. I do not expect Qt to come with an IDE and indeed would probably not use one (I quite like KDevelop). Qt also does not come with a compiler, it does not come with source code control, it is not a web browser, and it cannot play DVDs. Obviously I am being facetious here.
Qt is expensive. If C++ Builder allows you to develop a similar quality of product at about the same level of work, your boss is right that you should be using C++ Builder. At the company I work for, we examined the alternatives and decided that purchasing a license for Qt would be a cost-effective solution and indeed this seems to have been the case.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
I was happily producing tcl/Tk apps for more than a year, until a new employee came on board. He would pronounce it "tickle". "Tickle [this]" and "Tickle [that]" without so much as an ounce of shame. It bugged me so much! I used to pronouce it "Tee-Cee-El" as much as possible just to see if he'd get the hint and *stop*. I stopped working with tcl just to stay away from the small following he'd developed who all ran around discussing better ways to "tickle" -- or whatever.
I still can't pronounce it "tickle" without feeling like I'm somehow being intimate with everyone in the room. It's all about the mental picture. At least "cute" doesn't conote a bad mental piture. I mean, come on... Have some cooth! What if someone came up with a language called BT or FK or SHT? How would you want people to pronouce those languages in a staff meeting?
Under Ralph's direction, the Canopy Group has identified and invested in promising open source and Internet infrastructure technologies. Canopy's greatest strength lies in providing the companies that produce these technologies a sheltered environment in which they can grow and develop. Canopy companies are strongly encouraged to work with each in synergistic partnerships.
Ralph also servers as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Angel Partners, a 501(c)3 support organization for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He is also a Trustee for the Noorda Family Trust, the Scenic View Center, and the Worth of a Soul Foundation. He is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Altiris, AP Software, Caldera Systems, Center 7, Coresoft, and Helius. He sits on the Board of Directors for: the Canopy Group, 2NetFX, Arcanvs, Cogito, DataCrystal, Expressware, Global Prime, The Guy Store, HomePipeLine, iBase Systems, Interworks, Lineo, MTI, ManageMyMoney, Nombas, Profit Pro, Recruit Search, Troll Tech and TugNut.
>The use of GTK+ maintains the freedom of the Linux >platform.
>The use of Qt, for proprietary applications, results in a >platform that is locked in to Trolltech.
So you are saying that freedom in linux means proprietary companies can write proprietary closed source code, and sell it on Linux. That is not about free software. Linux is about free software, which the LGPL disregards.
Which is why Qt is more about free software than GTK will ever be.
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
Maybe it's just me, but if you pose the question in your FAQ, but the real answer can only be found by rummaging through a mailing list archive, you're dodging the question.
This sig intentionally left blank.
Hacked? Are you an ass? Yes. Yes I believe you are truly an ass!
Hate to pea in your wheaties but Quartz, Cocoa, Java, QuickTime and more are not "hacks." I'd love to see what you consider non-hacks. Let's not even get into the contributions NeXT and now Apple is making with BSD, Mach and GCC. Shit if it wasn't for those contributions GCC would be far behind the curve. It's amazing to me how one shoots off commentary without ever being on the inside to know what the hell goes on.
What I learned working at NeXT and Apple is we seemed to have this reputation of being untouchable and overly arrogant with our developed products. Not surprising considering seeing both sides of the screen I've yet to find any other company who has even close the caliber of talent writing software that NeXT did and did infuse into Apple.
Any one who would turn down a job to learn under that Engineering team is either a complete schizophrenic or never was considered for any of those positions, in the first place.
It is clear to me how come Trolltech isn't offering a free Windows port. They want to stay in business and the Windows world has a crapload of money to purchase licenses from them. If Bill Gates suddenly went Open Source I'm sure Trolltech would follow.
What's wrong with dodging questions?
Investigate wxWidgets.
wxWidgets is a decent toolkit. I do mean to look more closely at it, but Qt is the filet mignon of the GUI toolkit world. wxWidgets was a bit rough around the edges last time I looked at it, but I hear there was a major revision since then. At least the main developer said he had one planned. The last time I looked at it, it was still called wxWindows. That shows my age, eh?
Anyway, free GUI toolkits is one topic that Slashdot covers sometimes. This article is about Qt specifically. I do not like the attitude that the Qt people had in the article, saying there is no Windows/OSS community. I take umbrage at that because I am part of that "nonexistant" community.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Please stop reporting wrong rumours as facts.
Check Trolltech's site for their board of directors, or search for "Yarro" on their site - and then apologies to them for spreading lies.
Go reread the article. The primary reason they gave was that in order to get the Windows development kit you have to sign a webform and that's how they get most of their contact information for when they spam people.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think it's absolutely pathetic the way all these Windows fanboys bitch about the way Trolltech hasn't released a GPL version of Qt for windows. Nothing is stopping them doing what we in the GNU/Linux community have already done for ourselves, and writing their own.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but in my opinion one of the strong advantages of open source is that it allows sharing of code, rather than having everyone have to reinvent the wheel. Sure, someone could port a GPL version of QT to Windows themselves. Or perhaps, they could not bother with QT and stick with other toolkits as does happen. Perhaps Trolltech shouldn't have released QT as GPL on any platform - after all, any Linux developer can go and write their own toolkit if they want a GPL one.
And why is it okay to support or argue for the idea of open source (as Linux users often do), but it's "pathetic" to do so if you're a Windows user?
Anyway, if you're that concerned about Open Source software, why don't you ditch Windows altogether and move to a real Open Source operating system, such as Linux or one of the BSD variants?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Qt Designer: Visual Studio on the rag!
Board of directors is different than management team. Stock holders vote on board of directors. The board of directors appoints top managers (C.E.O, VPs, etc. who run the company).
I wish Trolltech had a "Board of Directors" Page. I'd love to see it !!!! The page you are pointing to is not it. Sorry.
Google on "Yarro Troll Tech board of directors" and report back to us.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
> > The use of GTK+ maintains the freedom of the Linux platform.
.Net, and a Microsoft Palladium id, in order to run.
.Net/Palladium dependence? Obviously the 20 application makers, or someone else, or even User-B himself, would fork GTK.
.Net/Palladium dependence into Qt itself.
.Net and Palladium, he must replace all 20 of his proprietary-Qt-based applications at the same time. It would be like trying to migrate off of Windows.
> > The use of Qt, for proprietary applications, results in a platform that is locked in to Trolltech.
> So you are saying that freedom in linux means proprietary companies can write proprietary closed source code, and sell it on Linux. That is not about free software. Linux is about free software, which the LGPL disregards.
> Which is why Qt is more about free software than GTK will ever be.
If you are not lying, then you are an utter fool.
Because even a regular fool can see why your statement is false.
To see why, let's consider two users...
User-A:
User-A only runs Open Source software.
Thus, User-A refuses to run any proprietary applications built with GTK. Likewise, User-A refuses to install the proprietary version of Qt, or to run any proprietary applications built with it. Thus, it makes no difference for User-A whether his applications are built with GTK or Qt, because they are all Open Source.
Thus, for User-A, GTK and Qt are equal, in terms of freedom.
User-B:
User-B, on the other hand, wants his platform (Linux) to be Open Source, but he is willing to take a chance and run some proprietary end-user applications.
For User-B, there is a big difference between GTK-based and Qt-based applications.
Let's say, for example, that User-B runs 20 proprietary applications built with GTK.
Now let's say that the maker of application #17 changes that application so that it now requires
If User-B wants to avoid Palladium, what can he do?
Well, since it's just one application, it will probably be worth the effort for him to replace that application.
And if the makers of GTK itself tried to introduce the
Now let's say, instead, that User-B runs 20 proprietary applocations built with proprietary Qt.
And, let's say that Trolltech introduces the
Now, if User-B wants to avoid
Thus, User-B is strongly lock in to proprietary Qt, because it is a huge effort to switch. Plus, neither the application makers, nor User-B, nor anyone else, can legally fork the proprietary version of Qt.
Thus, even if he uses some proprietary applications, User-B can protect his freedom by ensuring that the underlying platform, and libraries, are Open Source. If one application maker does something bad, it only affects that one application, so he can replace that one application. And GTK, even when used to build a proprietary application, is an Open Source library.
But if his applications are built with a common proprietary library, then User-B is locked in by the owner of that proprietary library, because, if the library changes, it affects all of User-B's applications. And Qt, when used to build a proprietary application, is a proprietary library.
Therefore:
1. User-A always keeps his freedom by using only Open Source software.
2. User-B keeps most of his freedom if his proprietary applications are GTK-based, but is locked in to Trolltech if his proprietary applications are Qt based.
In other words...
Independent of whether a given application creates lock-in...
GTK always leaves its application users free.
And Qt leaves its GPL'd application users free, but thoroughly locks in its proprietary application users.
So explain to me how you think this makes Qt more free than GTK???
Comment removed based on user account deletion
{or not released at all, just used within an organisation}
That's a myth; but one that even the FSF has helped spread (although not in the exact same form).
However, actually reading the text of the GPL will reveal that there is no special exception for organizations (or corporations). According to the license, you must apply the GPL whenever you "distribute" the modified software.
Some organizations have thousands of locations and a million members. To give a modified program to all those people would undeniably qualify as "distribution"; the fact that they're all "internal users" is irrelevant.
(Note that copyright law also has no exception for members of an organization)
"I did not write the grandparent post but it is well known on the qt-interest mailing list (run by Trolltech) that the reason there's no GPL'ed version of Qt for Windows is exactly the reason given in the grandparent post."
But why doesnt Eirik say this in the interview?
He gives reasons that don't really make sense.
I take the parent post as evidence that there is an astroturf campaign in support of Trolltech.
Whether Trolltech can afford such a campaign on their own, or would need the backing of someone larger (*cough*Microsoft*cough*), I can't say.
The astroturf seems intended to hide the fact that Trolltech is locking in Linux, through the growing use of proprietary Qt.
In this case, the evidence is in the obvious contradiction in the parent post.
The parent says that the LGPL "disregards" the freedom in Linux, that the GPL protects.
That would make the poster an extreme Free Software advocate -- too extreme for the LGPL, and other Open Source licenses.
But that should make the parent agree with the grandparent post. In other words, the parent poster should also be telling people NOT to use the PROPRIETARY version of Qt, and proprietary applications built with it.
And yet the parent is pushing this extreme pro-Free/anti-LGPL position in order to SUPPORT the use of proprietary Qt.
That is a huge contradiction.
So either the parent poster is insane.
Or, he has a financial interest in promoting Trolltech and proprietary Qt, even if it means using illogical arguments.
Of course, astroturfers are forced to use illogical arguments, because the truth is against them.
Which is exactly what they did -- and it's an almighty coincidence if that wasn't what prompted TrollTech to release Qt under the GPL.
Er, I wasn't saying that there weren't any alternative toolkits on Linux (there are alternative toolkits on Windows too).
Because you are judged by your deeds, not your words. It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
And how do you know the deeds of any given Windows user, versus any given Linux user? I could make the same comment to anyone who advocates that something should be opensourced, and/or ported to their platform.
Anyway, if you're that concerned about Open Source software, why don't you ditch Windows altogether and move to a real Open Source operating system, such as Linux or one of the BSD variants?
Because Linux and BSD do not meet my needs in the slightest (not that I think Windows is particularly special - there are plenty of OSs that come higher up on my list).
Anyhow, that's irrelevant - don't turn this into an "I think Linux/BSD is best therefore that's all anyone should use" argument.
Why on earth can I only be concerned about open source if I use an open source OS? I, along with plenty of developers, happily release open source software on closed source OSs, it would be a shame to lose that.
Besides whining, none of you folks has considered porting the GPLed Qt to Windows. It's free software! Nobody is stopping you from doing the porting.
One would assume that if there were a crying need, somebody would do it. That is how the free software "community" works, isn't it? Stop moaning, start coding.
It is clear to me how come Trolltech isn't offering a free Windows port. They want to stay in business and the Windows world has a crapload of money to purchase licenses from them.
I agree, but it would at least be honest of them to say that it's because that's where the money is, rather than trying to suggest it's because of some moral "we only support GPL platforms" idea (which also implies Windows is somehow bad - which of course is the exact opposite of what it should be, if it's providing them with money).
If Bill Gates suddenly went Open Source I'm sure Trolltech would follow.
Well, it would still be true that the Windows port would generate them money, even if Microsoft suddenly went open source.
I wonder how much Microsoft will have to release as open source to get them to change their mind (since they have released a little as open source, I believe - Apple haven't released OS X as open source, which I think was the original poster's point, even if using the word "hack" wasn't the best choice, so it is unfair to ask Microsoft to open source Windows).
Yea, it cost them a user. I am doing GUI stuff for school and i had to choose between qt and wxWindows. i was going to use qt, but it isn't free, so wxWindows it is.
Despite being fairly under the radar, wxWidgets is very actively developed and there's a signifigant user community. I'll grant that it lacks some of the polish of Qt but it meets or surpases it in functionality (at least in all my needs, I'm sure theres people out there with other needs).
He was talking about Project Harmony. Trolltech needed a little kick in the pants to release Qt/X11 under the GPL. In the early days of KDE, Richard Stallman and other Free Software advocates were critical of some provisions of the QPL, and considered them serious enough to start their own clean-room implementation, dubbed Project Harmony. Trolltech, realizing that they could lose their place on the ground floor of the Linux desktop, decided to dual-license Qt/X11 under the GPL and QPL, thus restoring KDE's good graces.
ajs318's point, rabid zealotry aside, is a good one. Unfortunately, I don't think a Win32 port of Qt/X11 is enough. It may take a fork of the X11 code to get Trolltech's attention.
This sig intentionally left blank.
But the truth is the only kind of software the Windows users really know or care about writing is worms and viruses -- and even then they only manage that with a lot of help from Microsoft. They're quite content to eat the shit they get fed, because they know it would be too much like hard graft to try changing it.
You're a filthy troll, and your post demeans the hard work of many skilled programmers.
Fuck off back to your cave, and leave those of us alone who, despite being forced to live in darkness, still want to light a candle of freedom there.
An impressive bit of work, no doubt, but I'd still rather have wxWidgets or GTK today than Qt tomorrow.
Then why don't you judge us by our deeds? A tiny minority of script kiddies and "l337 h4x0r5" write the viruses you talk about. A much larger community of programmers are busy lighting those very candles - Cygwin, MinGW, the Windows ports of Mozilla and OpenOffice.org, and hundreds of other free and open source projects. But you seem to take a true troll's pleasure in ignoring the facts, and I doubt arguing with you will do any good.
Anyway, if you're that concerned about Open Source software, why don't you ditch Windows altogether and move to a real Open Source operating system, such as Linux or one of the BSD variants?
Because one of
A lot of FLTK apps are available here. There are quite a few. A good demo of the usefulness of the toolkit is this application.
Another little FLTK applet which I like a lot is xpp.
Nothing prevents GPL port of Qt to Windows - just grab the X11 GPL'd Qt source and start hacking.
Porting X11/Qt to Windows is completely within your right - just don't use TrollTech's Windows source code.
Certainly, but the OP was saying otherwise as an example of why Linux was a problem. Not being a dedicated coder (I write PHP scripts in my spare time, but that's hardly serious programming next to the power of C++), I don't always know what's available.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Although the point could use official clarification, this depends on how you define the entities involved in the distribution. Arguably, an internal release can't be considered "distribution". The entity that is making the modification is the same entity using the modification. No "distribution" is taking place despite multiple users.
It'd be totally unenforceable and crazy to do otherwise. E.G., a company decides to make some changes and use them internally. Let's say they're a small Mom & Pop place with no net access but a few employees. So, this company is to be expected to establish a presence on the net and shell out the dough for bandwidth so others can get their changes? And if they don't, who is going to know?
Not only that, but Trolltech is trying to make money off of QT, not just make it a standard. They're a corporation, not a not-for-profit standards body.
Seems like the present situation works quite well for them, why should they risk their bottom line to create a standard?
QT is far superior to GTK
I wouldn't say so.
Qt has significant grottiness that gtkmm doesn't -- it requires a special preprocessor, has duplication of basic functionality like string, and lacks STL support. It has license issues both on Linux and Windows.
When people talk about API cleanliness, they're generally talking about GNOME (which has a lot of oddball components like bonobo that people don't like much) vs KDE, not Qt vs GTK.
Ultimately, Qt is another Motif. If you don't have a problem paying the TrollTech tax, just like you once paid the Motif tax, then Qt may be an acceptable choice.
May we never see th
Sorry, though I can see your logic, I can still see some obscure areas.
What you seem to forget is that the proprietary Qt and the free one are the exact same library. It's just a different license that governs the application author -- not the user. The user is free to replace the libqt that came with his proprietary application with the GPL one. (Yes, he is, he's not distributing the combination, so he's allowed to, per the GPL license).
Your proposed solution would be to fork the library at its last "decent" version. Well, since Qt is GPL, you can fork it too, just like you can fork GTK.
The problem arises in the fact that proprietary app #17 was compiled to run only with that version with nasty features. So you can no longer run it. But the same happens with GTK: the application would still require those specific functionalities to run.
In the end, the conclusion I come to is: if you want to avoid being locked in (by whomever), you should avoid proprietary applications in the first place.
Now, regarding the grand-parent poster, what I think he meant is the usual Richard Stallman's "why you should use GPL for your next library" argument: by making it GPL, you force people to make GPL-compatible programs. (TT adds "or pay a fee"). This adds, from his point-of-view, a new degree of freedom: want to benefit for free, make free software too. With GTK, there's no incentive for companies to make free software. And mind you I don't say either is a bad thing: if a company were to decide to make non-free software, the toolkit would be the least of the worries.
Frankly, I don't see a problem with the "if you make money from my product, I want a share" idea. MySQL AB follows it too. TT has so far done nothing but good to the community: they have given us a very nice toolkit, well-written and even lent us some of their engineers to some projects. Whatever money they get reverts into getting the product enhanced, meaning everyone benefits.
And while you may be paranoid about the future, I on the other hand believe they won't be shooting their golden-egg goose (any time soon, at the very least). Meaning: it's in their best interest to stay friendly with the OSS community. And why not? We're doing extensive testing, bug-reporting and even fixing for them! I only wish more companies realised these benefits and made their software open-sourced.
And so that people don't start making accusations: I didn't receive any amount of money from TT to make this post.
So you are saying that freedom in linux means proprietary companies can write proprietary closed source code, and sell it on Linux. That is not about free software. Linux is about free software, which the LGPL disregards.
Which is why Qt is more about free software than GTK will ever be.
I don't buy it.
At all.
If you feel that companies being able to release non-free (or just non-GPL) software on Linux is unacceptable, and that it's acceptable to attack those companies, then why would you even want Linux to be GPL? It'd be much better for it to be under a license refusing to let anyone use closed-source software on it. Or even better, it could be under a license saying that anyone using Linux could not use or develop closed-source software ever again, for any platform.
Surely this is even more "about free software"?
This is probably unacceptable to you. It trades some of the appeal and usability of Linux in favor of trying to beat people about the head legally into being forced to work only on "free" software, rather than trying to convince people that Open Source is better because it just plain works better. This is *exactly* the difference between LGPL and GPL software when it comes to fundamental libraries like the standard widget set. For people that use Qt, some of the usability and appeal of Linux is being traded off for two things -- (a) theoretically more people using the GPL and (b) enriching TrollTech, giving them a permanent tax that they can levy on vast numbers of developers.
If you find that someone forcing you to pay a fee (or having control of your license) for writing any software using the (as TrollTech would have it) "standard" widget set for your platform is appealing and acceptable, then Qt may be your thing. Frankly, even Microsoft isn't this obtrusive on their own platform, and I find the idea of someone trying to make me pay a toll or control my license to produce software that interoperates cleanly from a user standpoint with the rest of my platform to be extremely distasteful.
May we never see th
Isn't that the whole idea?
Indeed it has to be. Just by adding a clause means it's not the same license. Add to that the fact that this is a restriction not existent on the GPL, which makes this non-commercial license GPL-incompatible. So there's no point in making a GPL-incompatible license with wording 99% similar to the GPL. Go ahead and make a different license once and for all.
Qt has significant grottiness that gtkmm doesn't -- it requires a special preprocessor, has duplication of basic functionality like string, and lacks STL support. It has license issues both on Linux and Windows.
This is a feature, not a bug. The statically-typed nature of C++, in combination with the ultra-statically typed nature of the STL make for a crappy GUI language. I'm a big fan of C++/STL, but its wholly inappropriate for GUIs, where a more dynamic language is called for. There is a reason why people fawn over Smalltalk and Objective C for GUI programming.
Also, Qt's containers are very different from the STL's. Qt's containers are reference-oriented, and facillitate polymorphism. The STL's are value-oriented, and discourage polymorphism. Using STL containers polymorphically requires dealing with smart pointers (to ensure memory gets freed properly) and introduces the annoying effect of having to use double-indirection while using STL iterators. C++ also offers no support fo introspection or properties, which moc gives you.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Case 2 - use some other method. Pencil and paper, even -- if doing it without a computer is the only way to do it without using Closed Source software, then so be it. Quote: "I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses" - Sterling Ball.
Case 3 - freaking well learn. Invest a little effort of your own now so others beside you can receive a dividend later.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Although the point could use official clarification,
There is no entity qualified to give "official clarification" except for the presiding court system. In particular, the FSF has no authority to "clarify" this point, except for software that they hold copyright to. Most "Free" programs of interest were not written by the GNU Project, but by Linus Torvalds, Trolltech, AOL, or whoever.
The intent of the GPL's author is legally irrelevant; all that matters is what he actually wrote. However, if RMS's goals were taken into account, then I doubt he'd support the GPL including a loophole huge enough to permit Microsoft to commercially fork Linux...
"Thank you for joining the Microsoft(tm) Linux(r) Club! Membership dues are $299/year. Upon reciept of your first 2 years' dues (prepaid), you'll be given download access to our exciting Microsoft(tm) Linux(r) Operating System Software Suite! Remember that this software is for internal club use only, and that distribution to non-members will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
this depends on how you define the entities involved in the distribution.
The definition of those entities is completely well-defined within the GPL. As I said before, the GPL contains no special exception allowing an organization or corporation to be treated as a single entity. Therefore the entities in question are simply "you" (the human reading the license) and "the recipient" (or sometimes, "any third party").
Arguably, an internal release can't be considered "distribution"
Well, I suppose you can find someone to argue even the least-defensible of positions...
"Distribution" is a simple word. It's well-defined not just in English dictionaries, but in the US legal system, where the "drug war" imposes vastly harsher penalties for possession of contraband if it is "with intent to distribute".
If you give something to other people (or just position it in several different places) that is distribution, regardless of if those people are members of your same Cannabis Club, or industrial corporation, or are total strangers.
So, this company is to be expected to establish a presence on the net and shell out the dough for bandwidth so others can get their changes? And if they don't, who is going to know?
You are making the mistake of confusing "releasing" with "publication".
The first is a passive act; by releasing something, you allow it to go out to the public. Publishing is an active action, and implies web-servers or printings-presses or whatever.
Someone who internally distributes a modified GPL program has no obligation to publish it (as you say, that'd be an unreasonable burden), but she must release it. That means that any employees recieving that software have the option to share it with friends, if they want.
This is because the only way you can legally give a modified GPL program to someone else is to also give him permission to redistribute it. To do otherwise (such as by invoking the employer's perogative to command her personnel) is to violate the GPL.
And if they don't, who is going to know?
Although that question was pursuant to implied misinformation, the answer remains that undetectability of an offense is a poor justification for criminality.
Saying that Richard Stallman started Harmony is like saying Rush Limbaugh started the invasion to Iraq.
Both are largely cheerleaders, not doers.
RMS used to do stuff, he hasn't in quite a while.
Nono, 'nth' is actually a legal 'word' in scrabble, which I personally think is inane, but it's actually in the scrabble dictionary.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
There is no entity qualified to give "official clarification" except for the presiding court system.
The FSF can certainly clarify their intent.
In particular, the FSF has no authority to "clarify" this point, except for software that they hold copyright to.
They can file an amicus brief (in the US anyway). Since this is relatively new and volatile legal territory I'm sure the court would be interested in the authors opinion. Unless, of course, the issue is already decided by current case law; in which case this whole discussion is pointless.
The intent of the GPL's author is legally irrelevant; all that matters is what he actually wrote. However, if RMS's goals were taken into account, then I doubt he'd support the GPL including a loophole huge enough to permit Microsoft to commercially fork Linux...
And this scenario is likely why? How does this relate to internal distribution? Or are you just cheerleading a hard-liner intrepretation of the GPL?
The definition of those entities is completely well-defined within the GPL. As I said before, the GPL contains no special exception allowing an organization or corporation to be treated as a single entity. Therefore the entities in question are simply "you" (the human reading the license) and "the recipient" (or sometimes, "any third party").
How do you figure? From the GPL: 'Each licensee is addressed as "you".' Organizations purchase licenses all the time. As such they the licensee. Nowhere does it say anything about the licensee being a single human. The license states that "you" (the distributor) can't restrict the rights of the recipients. Even if "licensee" did refer to single individuals it would only apply to the recipients. If all the recipients are inside an organization it's a non-issue. There is absolutely nothing in there about being compelled to provide changes to non-recipients.
Well, I suppose you can find someone to argue even the least-defensible of positions...
Just as you can find someone to be pendantic and condescending.
"Distribution" is a simple word. It's well-defined not just in English dictionaries, but in the US legal system, where the "drug war" imposes vastly harsher penalties for possession of contraband if it is "with intent to distribute".
If you give something to other people (or just position it in several different places) that is distribution, regardless of if those people are members of your same Cannabis Club, or industrial corporation, or are total strangers.
This is quite a stretch. We're talking about a civil issue with quite different definitions. Drug specific criminal law doesn't enter into to it...
You are making the mistake of confusing "releasing" with "publication". The first is a passive act; by releasing something, you allow it to go out to the public. Publishing is an active action, and implies web-servers or printings-presses or whatever. Someone who internally distributes a modified GPL program has no obligation to publish it (as you say, that'd be an unreasonable burden), but she must release it. That means that any employees recieving that software have the option to share it with friends, if they want. This is because the only way you can legally give a modified GPL program to someone else is to also give him permission to redistribute it. To do otherwise (such as by invoking the employer's perogative to command her personnel) is to violate the GPL.
Mistaken I am not. The discussion so far has been about organizations making changes for internal release and not being compelled to make their derivative work publicly available. That's it. No one is talking about some organization making changes and then forbidding it's customers or employees (recipients) from re-distributing the derivative work.
Although that question was pursuant to implied misinformation, the answer remains that undetectability of an offense is a poor justification for criminality.
Perhaps, but it has a hell of a lot to do with enforcement. You don't have to justify anything if you can't be caught. It's a poor piece of law that can't be enforced.