Slashdot Mirror
Trolltech Adopts GPL 3 for Qt
Funkmaster F writes "At the KDE Developer Conference today, Trolltech CEO Havaard Nord announced that its Qt application development toolkit will be released under GPL 3. 'Here at the KDE release event, Nord's announcement was met with applause. Like Trolltech's initial decision to move from its own QPL license to the GPL, this announcement and the company's more recent decision to adopt the GPL for all platforms rather than just Linux, demonstrate the company's ongoing commitment to openness.'"
It gives the developer using the library more freedom, not everyone else. Hence the FSF's name change of the LGPL from "Library GPL" to "Lesser GPL".
Of course it's the same argument that BSD license proponents put forth. It boils down to who you're talking about, the developer or the downstream users (who may also be developers). As a user, I prefer the GPL. As a developer, I only care if I want to release a closed-source application. (And I'll take a BSD or LGPL'd library over a closed-source proprietary one so that I retain control over my own software; it sucks when your library vendor changes things, or it doesn't work quite as documented.)
-- Alastair
I simply find stupid the idea of having two different installed toolkits on the same computer
Why? That makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you really can't spare the extra ~5mb of ram, what's the issue? You realize that Windows is probably running about 5 different toolkits at once right?
less importantly but still somewhat relevant, OpenOffice
You do realize that Openoffice uses its own toolkit called VCL, right? Which means, that your computer has two different toolkits installed! Egad! Quick, uninstall Openoffice!
The only reason it integrates into Gnome is because there is a GTK compatibility layer, just like there is a Qt compatibility layer for KDE.
Not to mention Firefox uses XUL and XBL. GTK can be used to render some interface widgets, but that is minor in comparison.
All of them running over Gtk.
.gtkrc* and do it, it will reflect on every software using Gtk
Over GTK? No, the exact opposite. GTK is a shell on top (Openoffice also has a Qt shell). And you think that doesn't contribute to bloat? It's worse, because now you've actually got two whole toolkits loaded in memory at any given time. So don't think you're really saving anything.
I can go to
Well when I'm running KDE, I change the colours and fonts, and those colours get applied to GTK apps if I tick the box..
Consider very carefully what the actual potential costs and benefits of such a clause are before deciding not to use it.
One of the key advantages to using any version of the GPL is that your code can be combined with other code that was written separately and also released under the GPL. "Version X or later" code can always be combined. When the next version comes out, "Version X only" code will be uncombinable. That basically means that - unless your project is Linux sized and can get away with having its own license - "Version X or later" is the only answer that will allow your project to outlive your personal work on it.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
My goodness, it's almost as if you had some way to make companies who don't want to participate in the development of free software participate by funding it! That's so... evil?
how to invest, a novice's guide
This is supposed to be a bad thing, I take it? As I see it, the alternative for the software house would have been to just release their code. Open source, or pay up and fund future open source development. Seems like a pretty big win-win for the community to me.
The LGPL lets you use the platform to write whatever you want: free software under any license, proprietary software, etc. etc. Qt being under the control of Trolltech means that they decide what licenses you can use, free or otherwise. Now, Trolltech has been going in the direction of openness recently, and this announcement is more proof of that, but its product is still not as flexible as GTK, or the Linux kernel for that matter - you can write apps to run on Linux that use any license, just like GTK, and unlike Qt. I've posted it before, I'll post it again - would Linux be as successful today if it were licensed like Qt is, i.e., that you need to pay if you aren't GPLed (or on a shortlist of other FOSS licenses)?
I think you're missing my point somewhat - I can't, as a small developer who doesn't even know if his software is going to be released commercially, start coding now and then purchase a license later. I'm a small game developer and my editor may be of no interest to anyone but me. But if it does turn out to be useful to release it, and I don't want to release it open-source, I can't simply buy a commercial license and be done with it.
Why should Trolltech mind if I bought a license later rather than sooner? They're still getting the license. One way just forces me to decide much earlier, when I may simply not have the information that I need to determine which is the right course of action. (Which, in this case, turns out to be "don't use QT".)
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
From the point of view of a free software developer, LGPL and GPLv3 are both equally free. The differences come in only if you are a proprietary developer looking for ways to embrace, extend and close up somebody elses code. Thats really all there is to the additional "freedoms" you have with the LGPL. Freedom to make code unfree. A way to sue people who copy code closed up which once was free distributable.
- software encumbered by patent law,
- software encumbered by anticircumvention law, or
- software that nearly everyone is presumed to have seen, making it prohibitive for a room to be made clean.
The third item is what made it difficult for Compaq to find good reverse engineers for its IBM PC BIOS cloning project: too many developers of application software for IBM PCs had already read through it, raising a rebuttable presumption of subconscious copying. This also causes trouble for developers of musical works, who are presumed to have heard their competitors' works on commercial music radio: see Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton.