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.'"
So the complaint that KDE is not as "open" as Gnome is no longer valid?
They are realizing that they can actually make more money this way, plus they get free bugfixes and user support as well. It's a win-win :)
Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
So I can no longer use QT to make whatever application I choose..
Sure you can; just pay Trolltech for a commercial license. That's always been an option.
-- Alastair
Great, now if they could just maintain all their language bindings properly so those of us in non-C land could actually use Qt, we'd be home.
You are plain wrong. Qt is released under GPL v3 and GPL v2. Just chose the license you prefer at your convenience.
In that case and if both versions will be equally kept up to date I am happy.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
how many gnomes have you opened, pervert?
The summary implies at least that it was under GPL2 before. So what problem did you have with it then?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Trolltech first released its Qt toolkit (for X11) under the GPL (v2) back in 2000. The Mac version was GPL'd in 2003 and the Windows version in 2005.
This announcement just means that they're adding GPL v3 to the licensing (it will remain licensed under GPL v2 also).
-- Alastair
Those devs deserver their salaries. I would purchase a license for their product for a big project even if it was to be open source.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Wow, way to spread FUD.
The GPLv3 requires that if you sell a piece of hardware that allows the software in it to be updated, and that software is covered by the GPLv3, the user must be able to update it with their own version as well as versions you supply. There's nothing about not allowing DRM.
This makes it easier for a user to bypass DRM for end-user devices like Kindle or the iPhone and such. But it doesn't disallow you from implementing it. So your point is basically as wrong as saying that the GPLv2 doesn't allow you to make money on your software.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I haven't seen anything in the GPL3 that would forbid you from making a program that implements DRM, and say, refuses to play media files that don't satisfy licensing requirements.
What it doesn't allow you is to code a player that through DRM enforcement is itself not modifiable, but such a thing isn't really GPLd in the first place. What good does source do to anybody if it can't be used in practice?
You say
That is a complete and utter strawman. No-one but you can say how your code can be used. If I were to assume that you were an intelligent person I would guess that you meant:But saying I can't use a combination of your software and my software, for what you consider Evil
But that is a completely different kettle of fish.
You can do anything you like with the code you write, but if you want to use any code written by someone else you have to abide by their rules. It really is simple and it was summed up years ago (paraphrasing):
Your freedom to do as you like stops at the tip of my nose
They wrote QT, they want to distribute QT, and they chose terms to do it.
Obey their terms if you want to use their product. If not, find something else or write your own.
The press statement says:
Qt is already available under the GPL v2 and will continue to be so in addition to the GPL v3.
Wrong again: if you pay for a commercial QT license, you can develop ANYTHING YOU WANT on top of it.
Did you know that "FTW" ("for the win") is a direct translation of "Sieg Heil"?
The GPL isn't, and never was, about developer freedom; it's about end user freedom. TrollTech understands this very well. If you want freedom as a developer then you'll have to pay them for it. That's their business model. They'll let you have their library for free if you give your software away for free as well. Otherwise you pay. Switching to the GPL 3 just furthers this policy.
QT has two different licenses - their open-source license, and their commercial license. This is not a problem - I'm fine with this.
The problem I have is that they require that any software written for their commercial-license library be only written for their commercial-license library. This means that if, like me, you're someone trying to start a game studio looking for a basic windowing library for an editor, you have three basic choices:
* Write your editor with their free library, then never be able to distribute it in any way without GPL'ing it
* Shell out $$$ for the commercial library, whether or not you'll ever need to distribute it
* Use a different library
Obviously I've chosen #3, but I can't help but think that perhaps Trolltech lost a sale there - I probably would have used QT if it had been a viable option, and if I'd ever decided to distribute the editor I likely would have gladly paid the licensing fee. It's a bizarre licensing decision.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
"Free speech issues are about governments making laws to curtail citizens' freedom of expression. ...
But no one has a "right" to come on to private property and violate the wishes of the owners."
So who do you think governs these rights that you say people dont have ?
Why can't you?
If you're making GPL 2 code, then implicitly you're distributing source. Make your source code GPL 2 and let the user supply their own Qt library. That's how it's done right now anyway. Qt comes with the OS as a part of the system. None of the apps on your box have Qt bundled. If you're not distributing Qt you don't have to worry.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
...you can use code released under GPLv3 to develop any kind of DRM technology you like. However, if you do this, section 3 says that the system will not count as an effective technological "protection" measure, which means that if someone breaks the DRM, he will be free to distribute his software too, unhindered by the DMCA and similar laws. As I read that, it means you can't sue someone if they break your DRM implementation. Seems fair to me.Of course you can make a GPL (v2 or v3) application which is defective by design. You just can not prevent anyone from fixing it!
Also, ironically, you used "then you" in your sig. Also, it's grammatically incorrect. And the punctuation is wrong.
So there's a possibility they are smarter than you.
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.
I realize that GPLv3 was designed to address a lot of problems such as Tivoization, but in following the debate on the Debian-Legal mailing list, I'm not completely comfortable with choosing version three.
Trying to actually read the whole license to decide for myself just makes my head spin.
Note: there is no software to download yet; there won't be any until the alpha test version is ready.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Exactly my point!
Any step I can take to reduce the bloat, I'll take it!
Openoffice uses its own toolkit called VCL... Firefox uses XUL and XBL...All of them running over Gtk. If I want to change anything on the interface, I can go to .gtkrc* and do it, it will reflect on every software using Gtk, but not on any software using Qt. That's what I mean with "I simply find stupid the idea of having two different installed toolkits on the same computer". It hurts much more than it helps.
This is getting confusing. I can understand thousands of lines of code of complex algorithms, but ask me about GPL and I'm lost.
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..
Every GNU+Linux distribution (which includes Ubuntu and Red Hat) already ships a bunch of GPLv3 applications. From the perspective of companies that distribute general purpose operating systems, GPLv3 is strictly better than GPLv2 because of the internationalized wording and the "contributors can't screw the community with patents" provisions.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Like it or not software is becoming the new land grab and ruthless companies (not just Microsoft) can ride roughshod over a well meaning and in many ways an idealistic software developer by actually take away their code and make it their own with no compensation to the developer, this is what the GPL was written to redress.
No formal or even informal agreement can exist in within the fabric of a societies Law without amendments added to it over time to hopefully protect the rights of the person or persons who it applies to. Looking at the GPL which was written almost 19 years ago, over time newer amendments must be made to cope with the vagaries of Law and to date GPL3 the latest revision. I am not going to blindly follow someone or a group based on past good deeds I am going to follow the group that I feel is protecting my freedoms now and not trying to control me. If you see the history many of the most oppressive dictators got into power because they were one of the strongest fighters for freedom. But after they got control and recognition they started to pull the reigns on their supporter and slowly take away the freedom. Leaving people to have less freedom then when they started with... I see the FSF starting to do the same and using people who blindly support the old FSF and slowing adding restrictions and making it sound good. For people to bend their principals a little bit each time. No one is asking you to blindly follow someone, the choice has always been yours. If you don't like the GPL then use some other License if you wish, the choice is entirely up to you. Of course when I read what you have written which likens the FSF to something like the Nazi Party in the late 1920's that reads like trolling. At least you don't have to worry that some jack-booted, brown-shirted FSF member is going to intimidate you or start beating up on innocent Microsoft employees, or worse yet Richard Stallman here defending himself against ninja's.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
KDE is unfortunately out of reach for most commercial developers. Trolltech has taken their pricing off their website, but IIRC it was over $1000 per year, per developer, per platform. It's a nice library, but it's not *that* nice.
Gnome uses the LGPL where appropriate to allow commercial development on it's platform.
The LGPL allows you to *link* code into commercial products. You still have to release the LGPL'd code, and anything you've added to it.
As a user, I want a wide variety of software on the platforms I use. Pure GPL platforms preclude almost all commercial development, and BSD platforms don't stay free (hello, OS X).
A balanced approach with LGPL libraries and GPL platforms allows the best of both worlds.
How can a comment that invokes such insightful responses be considered "Redundant"?
You may, but most users could care less what license their new shiny thing uses, as long as its free. They just use it.
GPL can totally be used against the causes of freedom.
I build a shiny widget, and release it under the GPL. Lots of people use my shiny widget - it becomes the gold standard for shiny widgets. Then some software house cuts a huge deal for software development with [insert name of immense multinational here]. The only trouble is, they need a shiny widget as part of the code. And damn, your one is the standard.
They come to you, and boy, you have them over a barrel. Because you were cunning enough to use the GPL, you can hold them to ransom, and charge them $1M for a limited license that lets them use your shiny widget in their new project. And whats more, you can sell it all over again the next time someone needs your shiny widget in a non-GPL setting.
If you had released your code under BSD this scenario can't happen.
The proponents of GPL sing a great song about freedom - but more than a few of them are fully aware of just how much control the GPL reserves for them, and they love it.
[x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful
As the developer of an Open Source package based on GTK called LiarLiar, I am very pleased that Trolltech decided to offer the Linux community such a powerful and easy to use toolkit; however, I chose to use Gtk+ because I may decide someday to release a Shareware version of my application. I receive nowhere near enough income from my app to even pay 1/10th of the license fee and I suspect many other developers are in the same boat. While the big commercial developers can afford a license, the thousands of small shareware authors would never be able to justify the license fees to be able to release their software. Thus, they will end up sticking with the windows API's.
Now if Trolltech decided to release Qt as LGPL, that would make cross-platform development of many shareware applications possible, but would likely hurt Trolltech's bottom line.
---Top 10 Business/Legal Websites | Top Anonymity Websites
Just out of interest, what makes you prefer firefox? I switched to konqueror as my primary browser nearly two years ago and haven't looked back - so much faster and "cleaner"-looking.
I am trolling
If GPL 3 is compatible with the Eclipse Public License, does this mean we'll see a SWT Qt port anytime soon?
Qt's commercial license indeed has a restriction, that you can not develop an application that was *previously* developed on the GPL version of Qt. So you can't develop your software against the GPLed Qt, test the waters, and only when there looks like to be profit, buy a commercial lincense and ship it.
This is a very reasonable restriction, but a restriction nontheless. So it's not "anything you want" as you claimed.
( -1, RTFA )
Qt is now triple-licensed :
For clients and users who are somehow constrained to the GPLv2, nothing changes. Qt is now a triple-licensed toolkit: commercial, GPL version 2 and GPL version 3 (technically, the X11 version is even quadruple-licensed). In the Open Source version, you get to choose which one you want to apply to your code. And if neither option is suitable for your needs, theres always the commercial alternative. One other thing I would like to point out is the fact that we are future-proofing it. The new license headers say specifically that you may: (at your option) use any later version of the GNU General Public License if such license has been publicly approved by Trolltech ASA (or its successors, if any) and the KDE Free Qt Foundation.So, I hope your fears are thoroughly allayed, and you can go about your business today with piece of mind that at least on commercial software vendor understands your software licensing worries.
Pirate Party UK
Adobe Flex was $500 (last I looked, $250), the mid range Visual Studio is about $500, and significantly less for volume licenses. Both come with fairly high class IDE's as well.
QT is a fringe library, even on its primary platform, doesn't include an IDE worth using, costs significantly more, and has onerous licensing terms. No one else makes you register your developers.
The end result is that it's nigh impossible to use QT in a commercial setting. How are you going to explain all these ludicrous restrictions to your boss?
I am not comfortable with having Trolltech set themselves up as the gatekeeper/toll collector for closed-source software on any platform. Even Microsoft doesn't get to collect extra fees for commercial software development on Windows.
GTK is much better suited for a general-purpose library on Linux than QT simply because it allows you to develop "anything" using it.
I have no problem with Trolltech using their current scheme to make money -- more power to them. However, I do have an objection to supporting their attempt to make QT central to Linux software development.
I avoid QT, except when using software that someone else wrote using it. I use GTK and ncurses when writing my own software.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Now if they can do something with their name... "Trolltech" sounds problematic, esp. in a tech industry.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
There are no separate versions. There is only one codebase for any given version of Qt, with the only difference being the license headers, and the few features that are only available in the commercial version (the website mentions "commercial database drivers and the Visual Studio Integration on Windows.") The Open Source edition is a single package containing all the applicable licenses.
(Or, for the short answer, "they will be.")
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?
It is false advertising. Just like the other day, where I asked a free man to do some work for me. And he asked me in return how much I was willing to pay him. Pay? But he was supposed to be free!
Someone has totally misunderstand the concept of freedom.
Me too, konqueror has been my default browser for years. There are some websites that require firefox, that's true, but the integration with KDE, makes-it a little better IMHO. The test for me will be the switch to KDE 4, I don't like de file/web browsing separation idea, but i'll give it a try, at least they have provided a toggle to keep using konqueror as the default file browser.
What's in a sig?
- 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.One thing we (modders of the Spring Engine) have been wondering about is:
.blends for 3d models, ...) but I doubt that's really necessary. How does the GPL handle non-code data? Is an archive that acts as a work when dropped into a certain folder still a mere accumulation?
We make a mod. This mod is essentially a renamed ZIP file containing a bunch of data files (sounds, graphics, key-value lists and some custom scripting launguage that is compiled into bytecode) and some Lua code. Now if some of that Lua code is GPLed, how much does that affect? Some say it affects only the respective Lua files. Some say it affects all Lua within the archive. Some say it affects the whole archive. Which is it? I'm thinking the GPL would affect the whole archive but noone's really sure. I've even seen the idea that all development files for the data files must be included (e.g. PSDs for images,
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Unless your product is intended to run on Windows XB, the operating system of the Xbox and Xbox 360 platforms. In that case, you have to get Microsoft's approval for your product before you can even start porting it, let alone sell it.
Or unless your product is hardware, which needs a driver. The Windows logo program costs money to Microsoft and money to one of a select few certification authorities hand-picked by Microsoft (not just any old SSL CA.)
Any of them. As near as I can tell the hardware protection they offer is fairly easily bypassed. Many people I know have done it. So having it is fairly pointless.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
You will find that the vast majority of libraries in Linux that you may wish to link to are LGPL.
Not Qt, unfortunately.
Ok, Ok. I know 'choice is good' and we don't want a winner in the desktop wars. But the dream of a single Linux ABI to target still lives on in some of us. Unfortunately, for those of us who find KDE to be a superior desktop to the other choices, it's never gonna be part of a single ABI.
There will always be commercial apps, and because they don't provide re-compilable source code, they're always gonna want to target a single ABI. And they will always go for a less restrictive license. So, assuming we want those commercial apps, and assuming they'll go with something they can use for free, there will always be GNOME. Not so bad, assuming there can one day be 1 GNOME target and that the various tookits will one day integrate seamlessly. The wildcard is the Mac, because most ISV's would want to target it, and QT would be a natural choice if it were free.
I don't begrudge QT their business model. They are a business, they've made some great contributions, and they want to eat. Well. And why shouldn't they. But their chosen model - free for GPL'd stuff and (relatively) expensive for non-GPL'd stuff - limits their market. It's not as though there aren't other models. Microsoft charges a bundle for Visual Studio, and (more or less) requires it to develop with their otherwise free (to use) ABI. Maybe QT could produce a comparable - but multi-platform - IDE, and make their money selling that. Then the commercial ISV's could use QT without paying for VS too. The problem is that the commercial ISV's have already invested in VS and a lot of Windows-specific code. Unless they really want to target Macs or Linux, it's really hard for them to justify the expense of going portable with QT.
Or maybe some company (IBM - yeah, but why; Apple - yeah, but mustn't risk losing MSOffice; Sun - see IBM) could give the TrollTech'rs a big payday and set QT free (as in Beer). The trick is to find someone who could justify the price by selling lots of hardware. But the server vendors don't care so much about GUI stuff, and the desktop vendors don't sell hardware, except Apple (see above). Google'd have been a good choice if they'd gone with QTopia for their phone platform (though they won't be actually building and selling phone hardware, will they?).
Oh well.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
qwerty
The way I would envision it is something like this- a company would be allowed to use GPL in their proprietary app for a set period of time, say 3-5 years, whatever the community agreed upon. At the end of that period the company would have to give the source code for their original app (or original specs if it is hardware) as GPL. To protect against cheating or the company going out of business before the time limit the code could be put into escrow until the agreed upon date.
The way I see it this would help both sides in the long run. It would give startups a good reason to use GPL code while giving them a chance to get their business off the ground and it would keep a steady stream of fresh code and ideas flowing into the community. I am sure that someone who knows more than I can point out flaws in the idea, but that is the point-to work out the flaws and come to a mutually beneficial arrangement. It just seems to me there ought to be a middle ground that would help both sides without locking horns.
What got me to thinking about it was the previous poster talking about mods, which reminded me of how many of my favorite software and games are useless now because they were proprietary and written for software/hardware long dead. With the short shelflife of most software I'm sure that there are plenty of startups which would go for a deal like this, while giving us a chance to not only recompile for newer/alternative platforms once the time was up, but to also use the code in our own projects.
Anyway it just seems to me we could find a way to find a common ground between free everything and locked away forever. And I know someone will say something like BSD, but that puts us right back in Tivo land where they can take without giving back. Something like this could at least give us a way to start a dialog between the two camps without the confrontational aspect that has been in the forefront lately. Anyway that's my 02c and I apologize about the length.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
GPL is about taking freedom away from developers, and giving it to users.
It is, and has always been: You may do whatever you want with this software, so long as you never remove that ability from anyone else.
GPLv3 just closes some loopholes in GPLv2, where people could distribute source code, but that source code wasn't enough to let users do whatever they want with the software. Examples are TiVo, software patents, etc. It's really not that complicated, or intimidating, once you understand the core principle.
If you want a license which gives freedom to developers (taking it away from users), check out BSD or public domain. That says: You may do whatever you want with this software, including remove that ability from anyone else. Example: the BSD network stack was ripped off wholesale and included with Windows, as the Windows network stack. But as a user, I cannot modify the Windows network stack, because I don't have the source code to Windows. Had Microsoft chosen a GPL'd network stack, they would've had to GPL Windows, thus giving me more freedom.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
RMS can't put your GPLv2+ software under a non-free license, it doesn't matter what GPLv8 or GPLv9 says, your software will also stay available under GPLv2.
The best he can do is put it under a BSD like license.
Rethinking email
So `freedom' for you means that you should be able to use anyone's code under the licence you choose. Quite a comfortable position!
I can think of five set-top game players still sold new in North America: Games for Windows (e.g. Shuttle XPC), Mac OS X (e.g. Mac mini), PLAYSTATION 3, Xbox 360, and Wii. The first three can run GNU/Linux. Now about the others:
With Xbox 360, you need XNA Creators Club in order to mod a newly purchased machine to run homebrew. This XNA Creators Club subscription costs $495 per machine for the typical five-year life of a console. In the case of a program under the GPL, "Installation Information" would probably need to include an XNA Creators Club subscription. People who port GPLv3 software to Xbox 360 would have to provide Installation Information along with the Corresponding Source, and it's not clear whether $99 for the first year of an XNA Creators Club subscription counts as "a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source".
To my knowledge, the one existing Wii crack has not yet been generalized to the point where anybody who has bought a Wii can stick in a disc or plug a card into the outside and start homebrew.
Not quite.
You can not dynamically link to GPL code. You can dynamically link to LGPL code, but you still can not statically link.
And before not to long, KDE.
Which means KDE is going OFF my system once it integrates the new libraries.
To clarify... the Tivo Loophole was NOT about companies not giving back.. Tivo did so.
The 'loophole' was punishing embedded companies that needed a locked down environment for connecting to their network since people want to 'play' with their devices.
Legally speaking, you are correct. There is no legal way for people to make a GPLv3 game for the Xbox 360 or the Wii. There is a way to hack each of those platforms, but that way is quasi-legal or illegal and not suitable for a game distributed under the GPLv3.
That is irritating, and I agree that it presents a problem for the GPLv3, even though I think those hardware platforms are essentially defective. I don't think not supporting defective hardware is quite the right choice at this point in the evolution of Free Software.
That's an interesting point, and I'm going to have to consider dual licensing my code under the GPLv2 and GPLv3 for the time being.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
As marcosdumay mentioned, the worst case with an unrestricted "Version X or later" clause is that the FSF releases a more permissive GPL. With a proxy, the worst case is that the proxy fails to accept future versions of the license that are reasonable.
In one case, your software can be combined with proprietary software. In the other, your software *cannot* be combined with free software. Considering the chances of these scenarios (reasonably low for a malicious FSF, reasonably high for a ineffective proxy) and the harm that would come from them (an incompatible license could make your software worthless, an overly permissive license merely prevents your software from exerting pro-freedom pressure).
Basically, your choices break down like this:
Now, my argument absolutely does apply to using the New-BSD or Apache license rather than the GPL. The question is simply if there is value to the idea of copyleft - and if you want your code to be usefully copyleft (which applies reusability), the only rational choices are "GPLvX or Later" or maybe the Artistic License 2.0.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
I agree that there's nothing wrong with Trolltech's business model in general. The problem is their pricing, which even they are so ashamed of they no longer advertise.
There's no room for the little guy in their scheme. You're either 100% on board and drinking their koolaid, or you're locked out.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Actually, I don't know because the game - which isn't built on qt in any way whatsoever - isn't finished and I'm not sure what platform I can get it on. If I can get it on XBox Live Arcade, I don't need to release the editor at all. If I can get it on Steam, I'll release the editor as part of the game. If I can't, I'll probably open-source the whole thing.
However, much of that relies on convincing publishers to publish it for me. If it was just my efforts, sure, but it isn't. Big random factors there, especially as it's kind of a weird game with heavy network effects.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
I'm squarely behind Richard Stallman, the GPL and Free Software. I explain why in Why I'm Proud To Be A Dirty GNU Hippy.
Request your free CD of my piano music.