You're aware that the QPL is, more-or-less, an open source license right? People didn't like it because it didn't meet the Free Software Foundations definition of free (meaning that, according to a strict interpretation of the GPL, it was illegal to distribute KDE in binary form), so Trolltech started licensing it under the GPL, leaving the option of accepting the terms of the old license instead.
As for dual-licensing it commercially and as free software, well, I don't see how that forces anyone to do anything. If you make non-free software, you pay the fee for a commercial license, and it's been that way since Qt was created. The growing success of Qt might encourage people to do this, but they're certainly not forced to. And if that happens, hey, Trolltech are successfully creating and supporting free software, and managing to make money. I don't see that as something to be wary of.
Re:When will Nintendo catch up with the 90's?
on
New Gameboy Announced
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
People want a backlit colour LCD? So that'll be why the Gameboy was a huge success, and the GameGear and Atari Lynx failed, despite both being technically superior, and having some great games.
Do you suppose this might have had something to do with battery life? As I recall, you were lucky to get a couple of hours out of the GameGear.
The Register are biased against Microsoft, and have good reason to be. Would you prefer that they don't reveal that bias?
Really, this is just what they do. Their tagline is 'Biting the hand that feeds IT', and they tend to take the piss out of anyone they feel like. It's one of the reasons I like them so much.:)
I did a search through the article for the word "open". I found "OpenGL", but no "open source". So, IMHO, this news release is just PR bullshit (apart from the BSD bit, which may be new) -- there appears to be no move whatsoever for NVidia to open up their source.
Nor is anyone claiming otherwise. The point is that this should mean that Linux/FreeBSD drivers get released at the same time, and have the same features, as the Windows ones. As well as actually being supported.
I wonder what implications the continuing close-source approach of NVidia will have, what with the upcoming abolition of binary-only modules in Linux kernel 2.6?
Currently, the kernel module part of the NVidia drivers is provided as source code. It's the XFree86 module that contains most of the code which is binary only.
Successful examples of this type of show include Buffy The Vampire Slayer (target market: Goths) The target market is what? I'm a big Buffy fan - I've been to conventions and I know a lot of people who are into the show. I know precisely two who might be described as Goths. If that ever was the case, it sure isn't now.
Doesn't solve all the problems
on
Qt Going GPL
·
· Score: 2
It seems, from past discussions I've seen and had on Slashdot, that the reason the big corporations prefer Gnome is not the GPL or concerns over the legality of KDE, but the fact that the Gnome libraries are actually L(esser)GPL, which allows the development of proprietary apps.
Now, the KDE libraries are LGPL, but if Qt is GPLed, that makes no difference. Anyone who wants to write non-free software in KDE will still have to pay for the Qt Professional License. Otherwise the whole lot will have to be GPLed, or released under a GPL compatible license.
I suppose it's up to personal taste whether you regard this as a problem or not, but it's something to think about.
The whole KDE/Qt thing just made me think that the GPL really needs changing.
One suggestion that came to mind, although I'm not really sure how feasible it would be:
Have a clause in the GPL which permits linking and binary distribution with any code which is licensed under any other license which the FSF deems to be "Free". They already keep a list of such licenses, and if the license isn't on the list, then ask them to take a look at it.
Well, since this thread asked "Why not buy Trolltech and GPL Qt?", and you brought Redhat into it, I think pointing out that this probably wouldn't make Redhat like Qt any more than it does was fair enough.
It is, of course, a discussion to be had elsewhere whether 'Free Software' means or ought to mean "If you base your work on this software, it must also be Free". But Trolltech take that view, and so do I.
That's all.
So what you're saying is, in actual fact, the problem for Redhat is not that Free Qt isn't GPLed, but that it's under a license which is too Free, in that it prohibits closed source software.
They really want it to be L(esser)GPLed, so people can write closed-source applications with it.
Whereas Trolltech want people who want to use their library to create proprietary applications to pay for the privilege.
But why? Qt is already available under a perfectly free software license.
In fact, Trolltech have said that they would GPL Qt, but they don't believe that it provides protection against non-free software dynamic linking with GPLed libraries.
There are still a few clauses people don't like in the QPL, but as I understand it, these are being fixed.
I know some people have a hard time with this concept, but not everybody who believes in Free Software thinks that the GPL is the only or even the best license
The only problem with Qt as a developer is that it is actually more 'free' by RMS' definition than GTK, which is under the LGPL (discouraged by RMS).
So if you want to write commercial applications with Qt, then you have to (shock! horror!) buy the appropriate license, which is admittedly expensive, but so what.
So you're basically saying TrollTech wants the best of both worlds. Well, good luck to them. They make very good software. They document it extremely well. They release it free to those who make free software, and charge those who don't.
Oh and KDE is mostly LGPLed. Gnome is mostly LGPLed. What was that about 'truly free'?
So, you'd prefer that an even greater proportion of that purchase was spent on keeping that drug addict in prison, to absolutely no-one's benefit, in the interests of the "War on Drugs"? Scary how these people think isn't it?
In practice here in the UK, it's just an easy way for the government to increase taxes after having promised not to increase income tax, cos that might annoy rich people.
Never mind that VAT taxes the poor disproportionately, or that gas (natural, not petrol) and electricity and many other things are plainly not luxury goods, which were what was supposed to be taxed when it was brought in.
I know that deriving from a GPLed library, your program must be GPLed. I have no problem with that, although I prefer the stance of the LGPL myself.
But this (as I thought I made pretty clear) is the exact reverse situation.
It is a GPLed program (or set of programs) which depends on a non-GPL library. This is not allowed and this is what I think is stupid.
It is purposely limiting the possible amount of GPLed software out there, as people write their Qt (or whatever) program, realise (although until now I didn't) that they cannot legally distribute their own program under the GPL, and choose some other license. Is that clever?
And what I suggest allows you to use the GPLed software as you like. You can use it, redistribute it, modify it, port it so it uses a library that IS GPLed if you want.
The only restriction is that you must have the original library in order to use it. Any library which has a license unrestrictive enough to allow your GPLed software to be used with it is almost certain to be freely available, probably with source code (as Qt is).
Otherwise, as I say, port the software to some other library.
The author has given you all the permissions of the GPL with respect to THEIR software. It is, however, not their responsibility to make sure you have the library on which it is based, or even that you are ABLE use it at all. That's your responsibility.
KDE is a "derived work" of QT, not the other way round.
The QPL poses no problems for the distribution of KDE under the GPL.
It's the GPL which not only requires that all derived works be GPLed, but also that all works from which the GPLed software is derived must also be GPLed. This is (IMO) plainly stupid.
The author of GPLed software should be able to choose to base his/her software on whatever libraries they damn well please, as long as THOSE LIBRARIES allow his/her software to be distributed under the GPL.
This particular clause does nothing to perpetuate the cause of free software. In fact it restricts those who might otherwise wish to GPL their programs, because they used Qt, or some other non-GPL library, and thus potentially reduces the amount of free software in the world, or (in this case) the use and distribution of that software.
KDE is a "derived work" of Qt, not the other way round. The QPL poses no problem to the distribution of KDE under the GPL.
It's the GPL which requires that not only must all derived works be GPLed, but all works from which the software is derived must also be GPLed. This is plainly stupid. The author of a GPLed program should be able to use whatever libraries they want, under whatever license those libraries are under, as long as THOSE LIBRARIES permit it.
The PC World near me stock quite a lot of Linux stuff. Several distros, other software and books. I didn't bother asking any of the sales staff about it though. What would be the point?
I've also seen the Linux versions of Quake 1 & 2 on sale in Game and other games stores. Which makes you wonder why they can't stock the latest Loki stuff. I bet if people actually knew you could get Quake 3, or whatever, in their local shop, you'd see common attitudes about Linux disappear much faster.
Well, actually, Outrage's policy is to "out" people who are gay but, in public, do or say things which are harmful to the gay community, e.g priests sermonizing about homosexuality being evil, politicians opposing equal rights legislation.
It is hypocrisy to which they are opposed. You may or may not agree with this stance, but they do not just "out" people arbitrarily.
You're missing the point. The speed cameras don't collect enough evidence to show that it was you who was driving your car. You're expected to tell the police if you were. This is self-incrimination.
If they could positively identify you as the driver then this wouldn't be necessary, since they already know it was you.
Of course, you could always question whether it was you filmed on the CCTV in court, but that's another issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when did paying the license fee for commercial software become a 'tax'?
You're aware that the QPL is, more-or-less, an open source license right? People didn't like it because it didn't meet the Free Software Foundations definition of free (meaning that, according to a strict interpretation of the GPL, it was illegal to distribute KDE in binary form), so Trolltech started licensing it under the GPL, leaving the option of accepting the terms of the old license instead.
As for dual-licensing it commercially and as free software, well, I don't see how that forces anyone to do anything. If you make non-free software, you pay the fee for a commercial license, and it's been that way since Qt was created. The growing success of Qt might encourage people to do this, but they're certainly not forced to. And if that happens, hey, Trolltech are successfully creating and supporting free software, and managing to make money. I don't see that as something to be wary of.
People want a backlit colour LCD? So that'll be why the Gameboy was a huge success, and the GameGear and Atari Lynx failed, despite both being technically superior, and having some great games.
Do you suppose this might have had something to do with battery life? As I recall, you were lucky to get a couple of hours out of the GameGear.
Well, no. Why is it irresponsible?
:)
The Register are biased against Microsoft, and have good reason to be. Would you prefer that they don't reveal that bias?
Really, this is just what they do. Their tagline is 'Biting the hand that feeds IT', and they tend to take the piss out of anyone they feel like. It's one of the reasons I like them so much.
I did a search through the article for the word "open". I found "OpenGL", but no "open source". So, IMHO, this news release is just PR bullshit (apart from the BSD bit, which may be new) -- there appears to be no move whatsoever for NVidia to open up their source.
Nor is anyone claiming otherwise. The point is that this should mean that Linux/FreeBSD drivers get released at the same time, and have the same features, as the Windows ones. As well as actually being supported.
I wonder what implications the continuing close-source approach of NVidia will have, what with the upcoming abolition of binary-only modules in Linux kernel 2.6?
Currently, the kernel module part of the NVidia drivers is provided as source code. It's the XFree86 module that contains most of the code which is binary only.
Successful examples of this type of show include Buffy The Vampire Slayer (target market: Goths)
The target market is what? I'm a big Buffy fan - I've been to conventions and I know a lot of people who are into the show. I know precisely two who might be described as Goths. If that ever was the case, it sure isn't now.
It seems, from past discussions I've seen and had on Slashdot, that the reason the big corporations prefer Gnome is not the GPL or concerns over the legality of KDE, but the fact that the Gnome libraries are actually L(esser)GPL, which allows the development of proprietary apps.
Now, the KDE libraries are LGPL, but if Qt is GPLed, that makes no difference. Anyone who wants to write non-free software in KDE will still have to pay for the Qt Professional License. Otherwise the whole lot will have to be GPLed, or released under a GPL compatible license.
I suppose it's up to personal taste whether you regard this as a problem or not, but it's something to think about.
I agree entirely.
The whole KDE/Qt thing just made me think that the GPL really needs changing.
One suggestion that came to mind, although I'm not really sure how feasible it would be:
Have a clause in the GPL which permits linking and binary distribution with any code which is licensed under any other license which the FSF deems to be "Free". They already keep a list of such licenses, and if the license isn't on the list, then ask them to take a look at it.
Well, since this thread asked "Why not buy Trolltech and GPL Qt?", and you brought Redhat into it, I think pointing out that this probably wouldn't make Redhat like Qt any more than it does was fair enough. It is, of course, a discussion to be had elsewhere whether 'Free Software' means or ought to mean "If you base your work on this software, it must also be Free". But Trolltech take that view, and so do I. That's all.
So what you're saying is, in actual fact, the problem for Redhat is not that Free Qt isn't GPLed, but that it's under a license which is too Free, in that it prohibits closed source software.
They really want it to be L(esser)GPLed, so people can write closed-source applications with it.
Whereas Trolltech want people who want to use their library to create proprietary applications to pay for the privilege.
Hmm, I know whose side I take.
But why? Qt is already available under a perfectly free software license.
In fact, Trolltech have said that they would GPL Qt, but they don't believe that it provides protection against non-free software dynamic linking with GPLed libraries.
There are still a few clauses people don't like in the QPL, but as I understand it, these are being fixed.
I know some people have a hard time with this concept, but not everybody who believes in Free Software thinks that the GPL is the only or even the best license
The only problem with Qt as a developer is that it is actually more 'free' by RMS' definition than GTK, which is under the LGPL (discouraged by RMS).
So if you want to write commercial applications with Qt, then you have to (shock! horror!) buy the appropriate license, which is admittedly expensive, but so what.
So you're basically saying TrollTech wants the best of both worlds. Well, good luck to them. They make very good software. They document it extremely well. They release it free to those who make free software, and charge those who don't.
Oh and KDE is mostly LGPLed. Gnome is mostly LGPLed. What was that about 'truly free'?
Yeah, cos Microsoft (or whoever) has the power to retrospectively change the license on already distributed software, don't they?
And the KDE Free Foundation doesn't exist either, does it?
So, you'd prefer that an even greater proportion of that purchase was spent on keeping that drug addict in prison, to absolutely no-one's benefit, in the interests of the "War on Drugs"? Scary how these people think isn't it?
Well that's the theory about VAT, anyway.
In practice here in the UK, it's just an easy way for the government to increase taxes after having promised not to increase income tax, cos that might annoy rich people.
Never mind that VAT taxes the poor disproportionately, or that gas (natural, not petrol) and electricity and many other things are plainly not luxury goods, which were what was supposed to be taxed when it was brought in.
I know that deriving from a GPLed library, your program must be GPLed. I have no problem with that, although I prefer the stance of the LGPL myself.
But this (as I thought I made pretty clear) is the exact reverse situation.
It is a GPLed program (or set of programs) which depends on a non-GPL library. This is not allowed and this is what I think is stupid.
It is purposely limiting the possible amount of GPLed software out there, as people write their Qt (or whatever) program, realise (although until now I didn't) that they cannot legally distribute their own program under the GPL, and choose some other license. Is that clever?
And what I suggest allows you to use the GPLed software as you like. You can use it, redistribute it, modify it, port it so it uses a library that IS GPLed if you want.
The only restriction is that you must have the original library in order to use it. Any library which has a license unrestrictive enough to allow your GPLed software to be used with it is almost certain to be freely available, probably with source code (as Qt is).
Otherwise, as I say, port the software to some other library.
The author has given you all the permissions of the GPL with respect to THEIR software. It is, however, not their responsibility to make sure you have the library on which it is based, or even that you are ABLE use it at all. That's your responsibility.
Think of it this way.
KDE is a "derived work" of QT, not the other way round.
The QPL poses no problems for the distribution of KDE under the GPL.
It's the GPL which not only requires that all derived works be GPLed, but also that all works from which the GPLed software is derived must also be GPLed. This is (IMO) plainly stupid.
The author of GPLed software should be able to choose to base his/her software on whatever libraries they damn well please, as long as THOSE LIBRARIES allow his/her software to be distributed under the GPL.
This particular clause does nothing to perpetuate the cause of free software. In fact it restricts those who might otherwise wish to GPL their programs, because they used Qt, or some other non-GPL library, and thus potentially reduces the amount of free software in the world, or (in this case) the use and distribution of that software.
Think of it this way.
KDE is a "derived work" of Qt, not the other way round. The QPL poses no problem to the distribution of KDE under the GPL.
It's the GPL which requires that not only must all derived works be GPLed, but all works from which the software is derived must also be GPLed. This is plainly stupid. The author of a GPLed program should be able to use whatever libraries they want, under whatever license those libraries are under, as long as THOSE LIBRARIES permit it.
The PC World near me stock quite a lot of Linux stuff. Several distros, other software and books. I didn't bother asking any of the sales staff about it though. What would be the point?
I've also seen the Linux versions of Quake 1 & 2 on sale in Game and other games stores. Which makes you wonder why they can't stock the latest Loki stuff. I bet if people actually knew you could get Quake 3, or whatever, in their local shop, you'd see common attitudes about Linux disappear much faster.
Well, actually, Outrage's policy is to "out" people who are gay but, in public, do or say things which are harmful to the gay community, e.g priests sermonizing about homosexuality being evil, politicians opposing equal rights legislation.
It is hypocrisy to which they are opposed. You may or may not agree with this stance, but they do not just "out" people arbitrarily.
Apparently, in Edinburgh, the police have started compulsory DNA sampling for any offence, from being caught speeding upwards.
This is bad news IMHO.
You're missing the point. The speed cameras don't collect enough evidence to show that it was you who was driving your car. You're expected to tell the police if you were. This is self-incrimination.
If they could positively identify you as the driver then this wouldn't be necessary, since they already know it was you.
Of course, you could always question whether it was you filmed on the CCTV in court, but that's another issue.
Does anyone know where I can buy Loki's games in the UK?
Is Linus the sole copyright holder of ALL the code in the kernel?
Of course not.
Therefore, once they release "Mobile Linux", they *have* to release the source under the GPL.