Slashdot Mirror
To Whom Should I Donate?
jasonmanley writes "I currently use DesktopBSD. The other day I gave some thought to donating money to the project, but then I got to thinking — to whom would I donate the money? DesktopBSD benefits from FreeBSD and KDE among other projects. What about software with a smaller focus, such as OpenSSH? In fact, there are heaps of other projects' software embedded in FOSS packages, and I would like to know who the community thinks should get the donations."
So I guess you don't do any non-UI things, apparently.
Here's a hint: you can build any Linux system you want without a single Qt library dependency. Try do to the same with GLib and you'll find yourself cutting out most of the modern amenities offered.
Want HAL so your hardware "just works", whoops, you need GLib. Want GStreamer so Phonon "just works", yep, GLib (and don't get me started on how Phonon reinvented that wheel). PolicyKit? Bluez (Linux bluetooth stack)? Hell, even Qt optionally depends on GLib. And these are just off the top of my head; feel free to inspect your distro and see just how many packages depend on GLib.
GLib is the go-to C toolkit for modern features just out of reach of glibc. It's handy because it's code you can be 99% certain that everyone's got it on their system so there's no worries about that dependency. And it's LGPL so even the BSD-luddites don't care so much about it "infecting" their software. Even when you start talking mobile and embedded computing, it's there (though some morons have started doing things like #ifdef-ing out parts of it, which is only going to cause headaches in the long run).
So yeah, if you want to talk about GUI space, stick with Qt all you want. But when you start talking non-GUI, you'll get laughed at not to consider GLib's/Gtk+'s clout. GLib was there long before Qt decided to cut their platform into pieces and attempt to shoehorn it downwards.
Yes, so debian developers can break even more packages with badly written patches!
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
Well in a way the inital developer does. It is very hard to un-GPL a product once it is GPLed. And essencially if you want to have a Non-GPL version you need to have a new fork as contributions to the GPL code cannot be used.
I have been more wheary of the GPL Sience they really started to inforce it. The license is complex enough but to have an orginzation (FSF) Sue me for misusing the GPL if I did miss a rule, just doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies. I would prefer a License that protects me as the developer from legal repocussions such as I write code someone takes it and then sues me for stealing his code while he origionally taken it from me. Not over details such as if I happen to make an Open Source DRM product that somehow worked and was effective while being open source, and then it was found that the application was for a consumer product not a Buisness product (IE I am not IBM) so being sued for my own work. While not attempting to do anything wrong or imoral and would be perfectly legal with an other license.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.