Feature: Is Open Source for Windows Less Important?

While browsing through last week's discussion on GUI frameworks I noticed some discussion on the non-free nature of Troll Tech's Qt widget library. Frank Faubert wrote in with a similar question a while ago, so I figure it might be time to get your thoughts on this issue, and the larger question that encompases it: Is Open Source on Windows is less important than Open Source on Unix? Click below for Franks words on this subject.

The following was written by Frank Faubert

With the release of Qt 2.0, Troll Tech has been kind enough to license the Unix/X11 version of their flagship product under an open source license for use with other open source projects. Why are they doing this? According to their web site it's because they "have a strong dedication to the free software movement" and "believe that it is the most interesting alternative to Microsoft's near-monopoly situation on desktop software". What do they get out of it? From the same page, they hope to "spread usage of Qt around the world". This is all well and good, and looks like a win/win for everyone involved, but I have one lingering question... What about Windows?

If two of the goals of the Qt Free Edition are to help the free software movement and spread the usage of Qt, why not release the Windows edition under the same license? There are many open source projects which run on Windows as well as Unix (Apache, Mozilla, Perl, CVS, and AbiWord just to name a few); why should these packages be discriminated against.

Consider Apache for a moment. Porting Apache to Windows has helped it capture roughly 57% of the web server market which has caused Microsoft no end of aggravation. However, if somebody wanted to write a cross platform GUI configuration utility for Apache using Qt, they would not be able to release it under Windows. I fail to see how this meets the goals of the Qt Free Edition.

Like it or not, Windows has a monopoly on the desktop market, and it is going to take quite a while for anything to change that. Having more open source software that runs on Windows as well as UNIX can only help facilitate that change. Releasing the Qt Free Edition for Windows would be a big step in that direction.

Open source software that runs on Windows is no less open than its Unix counterparts, and should not be treated that way. I ask anyone who is reading this to either tell me that I am insane, or to write to Troll Tech and ask them to consider releasing the Qt Free Edition for Windows. Questions 20 and 21 of their FAQ prove they often get requests for this. If more of us ask...

Ed: Me personally, I believe that Troll Tech has the right to market their product in whatever way they wish, and I honestly believe that Qt under Windows is a huge achievement and wish them the best in its development. However, what about the folks that wish to port their Open Source Qt Application from Unix to Windows? Does development under Windows intrinsically cut a developer off from a few of the most important resources found in any Open Sourced project (those being right tools for the job, and the programming minds themselves)? Is there even a good solution for this situation?

Comments

Is Open Source about Good vs. Evil?

[chuck]

One of the problems I'm seeing is the impression that Open Source is more about crushing windows than it is about sharing ideas and technology that cost us nothing to share.

Remember that as a community, we Open Source folks get our strength from building off each other's strengths, and sharing our own for what I hope is some kind of greater good. Part of that greater good, I hope, is alleviating the need for developers to reinvent the wheel, as there are so many things that developers need in common, that we can benefit from sharing and improving common tools and libraries. The other part of that greater good is to help people like myself, when I was younger and more naive, and scraped together enough money to buy a computer only to find I could not afford the software to do anything useful. Open Source, and at that time shareware, was the only way I could claw my way out of ignorance and learn how to program to harness the power of my machine.

That has nothing to do with Microsoft, and I know that restricting Open Source technology from the Windows platform certainly does not strengthen any Open Source ideals. It is not going to make anyone ``switch'' away from the Bad Way. In fact, it can only serve to do the opposite, to paint the picture of the Open Source movement as a bunch of elitist and closed(!) minded individuals, who are willing to share only if you agree with their ideals! How is that going to help people join the cause?

On the other hand, let's imagine that someone that has never experienced the Open Source Way, using his/her Evil Operating System, discovers a ray of hope in some small library, or some other project. Suppose he/she benefits from it, or submits a change and discovers what Open Source is really all about? Then won't that have been part of the greater good?

Open Source is about creating, not about destroying, whether it be closed-source development, or Microsoft. Make sure that people realize that, and that we're not just a bunch of petty Linux and BSD bigots.

Bitching at Troll Tech

[Arandir]

Choices are:

1) Release both X11 and Win versions under a Free Software license. Result: severe and fatal drop in revenue. Would you spend even 10$ on a free software library? Can you name even one person who paid for GTK? Some large corps will pay for it but few others. Under Qt you don't need support at all. It's built too well to need it. But Linux users will still complain. As long as there exists a price list for Qt, they'll bitch about it. They don't want Free Software, they want freeware. "Why should I pay $1000 for Qt?" is the same as saying "Why should I pay $80 for Redhat".

2) Release both versions as Free for Free development and proprietary for proprietary development. Result: possibly only a slight drop in revenue. This option is probably optimal. However, the bitching won't stop because the average Linux user is an irrational creature. They don't want to create Free Software, they want to destroy proprietary software. Their zeal in condemning any and everything that isn't 100% GPL is proof enough that they don't want choice. They could care less that Qt is Free Software. If Troll went out of business and Qt transferred to a BSD license, they would still bitch about it.

3) Continue as they are, X/11 Free, Win non-free and proprietary usage non-free. Result: same as today. People irrationally bitching about it. Any valid argument for additionally freeing the Windows version is drowned out in the cacophony of hatred.