When you violate a license agreement, you lose the rights to use the software. That's simply what happens. You can't use that software again until the author forgives you for it and allows you to use it.
So, why is RMS forgiving KDE when not one semicolen of FSF code is included in KDE? And why does he single out KDE when there have been other violators of the GPL throughout the years? Did Corel get forgiveness from RMS, Linus Torvalds, and yes, the KDE developers? Did GNOME get forgiveness from KDE when they inadvertantly misappropriated their code?
The problem is not so much that RMS grants some sort of legal forgiveness, but rather that he singles out KDE and KDE alone as needing to be forgiven.
As to the personal preference issue: he has a personal preference for Gnome... so what?
The problem with Richard's personal preferences is that you never know if he is speaking for himself, forf the FSF, or for all Free Software users everywhere. You and I certainly know that they're just his opinions, but I'm not sure that HE knows that, as he often presumes to speak for people other than himself.
Oh yea! That *is* sweet. Put cvsup in your cron file and you will be current each and every morning. With a slight more amount of effort, you can have cron mail you for any new version of your currently installed ports.
For example, when trying to deinstall a library that other apps depend on the system will stop ya in your tracks.
Well, last Saturday I got tired of Qt without GIF support. I know gifs suck but when the web is still 50% gif based, it makes kfm pretty lame for browsing.
So I went into/usr/ports/x11-toolkits/qt145 and did the following:
make deinstall
make extract
(fiddle with the Qt configuration)
make install
Done! No problems. The existing KDE apps were unaffected. I didn't have to reinstall anything other than Qt.
And being a hobbyist won't necessarily protect you.
Protect me from what? My competitors? I'm a hobbyist, I laugh in the face of competition! Or do you mean protection from lawsuits? In that case the BSD warranty disclaimer is just as good as the GPL disclaimer (or the MIT and Artistic disclaimers). I've even seen PD with disclaimers!
If someone uses my code in their proprietary product, so what? I could of course follow the GNU crowd and regard that as immoral, but there are too many *real* evils in the world to fight against than to worry about who I can or cannot share my stuff with.
It shouldn't be that hard at all. About 95% of Qt applies to either system. You only have to support the remaining 5%.
Re:This makes Microsoft look good
on
Qt Going GPL
·
· Score: 2
A) Microsoft indeed charges you to develop for Windows applications. Once upon a time you could get the SDK for free, but not anymore. And yes, Qt costs more than VC++, but Qt+Cygnus beats the hell out of MS for quality.
B) You do make a good point however. Microsoft (and Sun, Borland, RogueWave, etc) doesn't care how I license my code. GPL libraries do. Qt under the QPL/GPL does as well. It's my only beef with Trolltech, but since I am already writing OSS, it isn't an urgent issue with me (so sue me for apathy:-) ). The best libraries are LGPL, BSD or freer. Although copyleft may have seemed like a good idea at the time, it absolutely screws over library users.
C) On the other hand, if you need no restrictions on your own code, purchase Qt just like you purchased your Windows libraries. It's strange bitching about how free libraries don't give you as many rights as purchased ones do. So just go purchase it!
Ditto. Choose the license that fits your needs, not the license that someone else tells you to use. The GPL, especially dual-licensed with a proprietary license, is great for commercial work (free for free, nonfree for nonfree). But for simple hobbyist stuff like what I make, even the BSD license is getting a bit restrictive:-)
Folks, if you really need to create proprietary software, do us all a favor and simply copyright it without any license. Just a plain "Copyright Anonymous Coward, all rights reserved" along with your warranty disclaimer is all that we need, thank you. Copyright already protects your rights. There is no reason to try to grab any more from us.
Keep your EULAs and shrink-wraps and one-clicks away. If you really need extra protection over and above copyright, then present me with a real damn contract with consideration and everything, including a place for you to sign as well as me.
The reason that no one complaining the reverse is that it is the NASM license which claims compatibility. The GPL never claimed compatibility with NASM.
Go take a look at the NASM license. It isn't that bad, and counts as OSS/FS. However, it has this bizarre clause in it that says NASM is GPL compatible. This is Palisade's point, I believe, that a lot of people are using NASM licensed code believing it to be compatible with their own GPL code when in fact it is not.
Re:GPL and internal-use software
on
Qt Going GPL
·
· Score: 2
There's still great debate over the private-use issue. A recent statement by RMS says that companies forbidding their employees from distributing in-house modifications is okay, so long as those modifications remain strictly in-house. Copies given to employees (such as telecommuters taking it home) cannot have these restrictions. It all depends on who owns the copy.
The GPL and QPL seem similar in this regard: you cannot keep an internal *product* private, only stuff in development can ignore the terms of the GPL. If you write an in-house word processor and give it to your HR department to use, you may not restrict them from redistributing it.
It appears that it will be dual-licensed under the GPL *AND* QPL. You can still use it for your Open Source projects and never have to tell a soul which of the two licenses you are using. You won't be forced to write GPL-only applications, and you won't be forced to submit modifications as patches.
Re:A GPL Windows/QT could fork from the free codeb
on
Qt Going GPL
·
· Score: 2
There's nothing stopping developers from forking the FreeQT codebase to create a new Windows based QT.
How does the GPL effect this change? Under the QPL one had every right to port it as well.
Wait...okay, I can still use it...whew!
on
Qt Going GPL
·
· Score: 2
GPL'd libraries can ONLY be used by GPL'd applications. At first I was thunderstruck that I can hundreds of other developers would no longer be able to use Qt for the BSD, MIT, Artistic or other Free Software projects. Releasing Qt under a pure GPL license would guarantee that many of us long-time Qt supporters would instantly switch to GTK.
But reading the announcement closer, there towards the end, I see that it will be dual licensed under the QPL and GPL. Whew! Thank goodness those of us who use unrestricted licenses can still use Qt.
This appears to be a dual-license (I have sent mail to Erik to verify). In this case, using the GPL makes all the sense in the world, since now everyone who uses *any* Free Source license can use Qt.
I remember last week when I posted about temperatures in cities being higher than in the countryside. I was poo-poo'ed as a dangerous malcontent. Yet two days later there was an article in the SJMN on precisely that.
I too have Linux as my only desktop OS at home. At work I have Linux on my laptop (definitely not a server). In just our little corner of my work building, maybe 25 cubicles, there are three Linux laptops, a LinuxPPC, and at least three people who use Linux at home as their desktop (two dual boot with FreeBSD). None of these are servers.
No, I don't expect that those in the business or human resources buildings would be able to cope with with anything other than Mac or Win. But then, they can barely cope with what they've got.
Re:This is a highly biased article.
on
KDE Strikes Back
·
· Score: 2
You're confusing the old Qt license and the new one, however, neither license can be revoked. That's just plain FUD.
The old Qt license was clearly unacceptable for commercial use. However, KDE2 (due out in less than a month), uses Qt2. Qt2 is 100% free for non-profit or commercial use. It is only unfree for proprietary closed source work. The license is no longer an obstacle for KDE.
If Sun and Co. rejected Qt *solely* because of the licensing, then it's apparent that they're planning on writing proprietary software with GTK.
Re:use is not proof of necessity
on
KDE Strikes Back
·
· Score: 2
Only a selfish developer would ever use the GPL, for her own benefit.
To quote from RMS: "Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it."
Re:use is not proof of necessity
on
KDE Strikes Back
·
· Score: 2
What has use restrictions to do with RMS' idea of Free Software?
To a developer, using the code is using the software. A GPLd library can only be used by GPL applications. Considering that the GPL is the embodiment of RMS' idea of free software, I can only conclude that freedom to him means not allowing MIT, BSD, AL and MPL coders to use his readline library.
If technical issues were all that mattered for software, Bill Gates would not be a rich man.
If technical issues were all that mattered, Bill Gates would be a pauper!
KDE wasn't started to be a free alternative to CDE, it was started to be a free alternative AND be technically excellent. Likewise, GNOME wasn't started to be a pure GNU alternative to KDE, but to an alternative AND be technically excellent. If licensing is all that mattered, I could recode any given proprietary app in about a week. Of course, it would be buggy as hell and extremely crash prone (assuming it would even run), but hey! It's free so code or shut up:-)
but doing nothing and having no free alternative such as GNU Linux BSD etc leaves us powerless to the whims of large greedy corporations.
Okay, I'm throwing away moderator points to reply, so listen up.
Freedom is not software any more than liberty is the piece of paper the US Constitution is written on. You and I have always had the freedom and liberty to create free software. There are no laws against it (patents not withstanding, but that's tangental). If GNU, Linux, BSD, et al never came about, guess what? Someone would come along and create them! That's exactly what Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds and thousands of others did.
The freedom is in the creating, not the creation. To imply that simply using Linux instead of Windows will free you is utterly ridiculous. I already have free speech. I don't need Richard Stallman to give it to me any more than I need him to supply me with air. And there is nothing Microsoft can do to take away my free speech.
Many of you out there used Windows once upon a time, and now use Linux or BSD. Did you have to break any laws to switch? Did Microsoft come to your house and break your kneecaps? Did they attach your wages? Were you, in any way, fearful of what Microsoft might do to you in retaliation for your rebellion? Of course not! That's because you were already free.
I don't know where this myth is coming from, but we are not powerless against the whims of people wealthier than ourselves. As long as we are free, they can do nothing to us against our will. And the only thing that can take away our freedom is crime and government. As it stands today, not one corporation in the world can tell me what to do with my life, liberty or property.
And before you all jump up waving your arms, I fully understand copyright does not let you do whatever you want with your own copy of Windows. Actually, you do. You can do whatever you want with your own copy, including giving it away to your neighbor. You just can't do whatever you want with the information, since that is not owned by you. Copyrights are a thorny thing. If information should not be owned, then by all means repeal copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets. But this will change nothing in reference to free software. Closed source software will still exist, only without government copyright protection, it will be encrypted and locked to registered users only.
Look at DVD's for example.
Okay, I am looking at it. But I don't see where my liberty is being taken away. If I don't like that I can only watch a DVD on certain players, then I can choose not to buy it. I don't go buy a beta video tape and then bitch that it won't run on my VHS player. Sony gains zero control over my life when I buy a Sony DVD. If DVD's are that onerous, then some group will create an alternative format. They're doing something similar right now with Ogg Vorbis. You don't even need hardware guys homing in on our turf. Just keep the DVD technology and create a new format to store the information with. This is not that hard to imagine. Remember DIVX? Remember how here at Slashdot we were warned that it would make us slaves to the corporations?
Personally, I think anarchy is a really bad idea...
So do I. Which is why I didn't advocate anarchy. I only advocated anarcho-economics (of either the capitalist, communist or other variety). I certainly want the government to do what it should rightly do, and this is to protect my life, liberty and property. But I want them out of economics. Keep the courts, the military, and the police. Keep the laws against force, violence and fraud.
And for those that think radical libertarianism leads to corporate domination, I also advocate the repeal of the incorporation laws.
Therefore, distros cannot both ship KDE _and_ QT at the same time.
Hmmm, can Sun distribute GNOME alongside its openwin? In any case, I'll play the devil's advocate and assume that Qt accompanies KDE and is simultaneously a module of KDE. What to do? Just read a few phrases back and distribute the source code for Qt! And reading over section 2, I find that works distinct from the Program do not have to fall under the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
When you violate a license agreement, you lose the rights to use the software. That's simply what happens. You can't use that software again until the author forgives you for it and allows you to use it.
So, why is RMS forgiving KDE when not one semicolen of FSF code is included in KDE? And why does he single out KDE when there have been other violators of the GPL throughout the years? Did Corel get forgiveness from RMS, Linus Torvalds, and yes, the KDE developers? Did GNOME get forgiveness from KDE when they inadvertantly misappropriated their code?
The problem is not so much that RMS grants some sort of legal forgiveness, but rather that he singles out KDE and KDE alone as needing to be forgiven.
As to the personal preference issue: he has a personal preference for Gnome... so what?
The problem with Richard's personal preferences is that you never know if he is speaking for himself, forf the FSF, or for all Free Software users everywhere. You and I certainly know that they're just his opinions, but I'm not sure that HE knows that, as he often presumes to speak for people other than himself.
Oh yea! That *is* sweet. Put cvsup in your cron file and you will be current each and every morning. With a slight more amount of effort, you can have cron mail you for any new version of your currently installed ports.
For example, when trying to deinstall a library that other apps depend on the system will stop ya in your tracks.
/usr/ports/x11-toolkits/qt145 and did the following:
Well, last Saturday I got tired of Qt without GIF support. I know gifs suck but when the web is still 50% gif based, it makes kfm pretty lame for browsing.
So I went into
make deinstall
make extract
(fiddle with the Qt configuration)
make install
Done! No problems. The existing KDE apps were unaffected. I didn't have to reinstall anything other than Qt.
And being a hobbyist won't necessarily protect you.
Protect me from what? My competitors? I'm a hobbyist, I laugh in the face of competition! Or do you mean protection from lawsuits? In that case the BSD warranty disclaimer is just as good as the GPL disclaimer (or the MIT and Artistic disclaimers). I've even seen PD with disclaimers!
If someone uses my code in their proprietary product, so what? I could of course follow the GNU crowd and regard that as immoral, but there are too many *real* evils in the world to fight against than to worry about who I can or cannot share my stuff with.
It shouldn't be that hard at all. About 95% of Qt applies to either system. You only have to support the remaining 5%.
A) Microsoft indeed charges you to develop for Windows applications. Once upon a time you could get the SDK for free, but not anymore. And yes, Qt costs more than VC++, but Qt+Cygnus beats the hell out of MS for quality.
:-) ). The best libraries are LGPL, BSD or freer. Although copyleft may have seemed like a good idea at the time, it absolutely screws over library users.
B) You do make a good point however. Microsoft (and Sun, Borland, RogueWave, etc) doesn't care how I license my code. GPL libraries do. Qt under the QPL/GPL does as well. It's my only beef with Trolltech, but since I am already writing OSS, it isn't an urgent issue with me (so sue me for apathy
C) On the other hand, if you need no restrictions on your own code, purchase Qt just like you purchased your Windows libraries. It's strange bitching about how free libraries don't give you as many rights as purchased ones do. So just go purchase it!
Ditto. Choose the license that fits your needs, not the license that someone else tells you to use. The GPL, especially dual-licensed with a proprietary license, is great for commercial work (free for free, nonfree for nonfree). But for simple hobbyist stuff like what I make, even the BSD license is getting a bit restrictive :-)
Hee hee. That part isn't the license though, I think. I got the impression that it was a preamble or introduction of sorts.
You hit the nail on the head!
Folks, if you really need to create proprietary software, do us all a favor and simply copyright it without any license. Just a plain "Copyright Anonymous Coward, all rights reserved" along with your warranty disclaimer is all that we need, thank you. Copyright already protects your rights. There is no reason to try to grab any more from us.
Keep your EULAs and shrink-wraps and one-clicks away. If you really need extra protection over and above copyright, then present me with a real damn contract with consideration and everything, including a place for you to sign as well as me.
The reason that no one complaining the reverse is that it is the NASM license which claims compatibility. The GPL never claimed compatibility with NASM.
Go take a look at the NASM license. It isn't that bad, and counts as OSS/FS. However, it has this bizarre clause in it that says NASM is GPL compatible. This is Palisade's point, I believe, that a lot of people are using NASM licensed code believing it to be compatible with their own GPL code when in fact it is not.
There's still great debate over the private-use issue. A recent statement by RMS says that companies forbidding their employees from distributing in-house modifications is okay, so long as those modifications remain strictly in-house. Copies given to employees (such as telecommuters taking it home) cannot have these restrictions. It all depends on who owns the copy.
The GPL and QPL seem similar in this regard: you cannot keep an internal *product* private, only stuff in development can ignore the terms of the GPL. If you write an in-house word processor and give it to your HR department to use, you may not restrict them from redistributing it.
It appears that it will be dual-licensed under the GPL *AND* QPL. You can still use it for your Open Source projects and never have to tell a soul which of the two licenses you are using. You won't be forced to write GPL-only applications, and you won't be forced to submit modifications as patches.
There's nothing stopping developers from forking the FreeQT codebase to create a new Windows based QT.
How does the GPL effect this change? Under the QPL one had every right to port it as well.
GPL'd libraries can ONLY be used by GPL'd applications. At first I was thunderstruck that I can hundreds of other developers would no longer be able to use Qt for the BSD, MIT, Artistic or other Free Software projects. Releasing Qt under a pure GPL license would guarantee that many of us long-time Qt supporters would instantly switch to GTK.
But reading the announcement closer, there towards the end, I see that it will be dual licensed under the QPL and GPL. Whew! Thank goodness those of us who use unrestricted licenses can still use Qt.
This appears to be a dual-license (I have sent mail to Erik to verify). In this case, using the GPL makes all the sense in the world, since now everyone who uses *any* Free Source license can use Qt.
I remember last week when I posted about temperatures in cities being higher than in the countryside. I was poo-poo'ed as a dangerous malcontent. Yet two days later there was an article in the SJMN on precisely that.
Excuse me for not remembering to laugh...
I too have Linux as my only desktop OS at home. At work I have Linux on my laptop (definitely not a server). In just our little corner of my work building, maybe 25 cubicles, there are three Linux laptops, a LinuxPPC, and at least three people who use Linux at home as their desktop (two dual boot with FreeBSD). None of these are servers.
No, I don't expect that those in the business or human resources buildings would be able to cope with with anything other than Mac or Win. But then, they can barely cope with what they've got.
You're confusing the old Qt license and the new one, however, neither license can be revoked. That's just plain FUD.
The old Qt license was clearly unacceptable for commercial use. However, KDE2 (due out in less than a month), uses Qt2. Qt2 is 100% free for non-profit or commercial use. It is only unfree for proprietary closed source work. The license is no longer an obstacle for KDE.
If Sun and Co. rejected Qt *solely* because of the licensing, then it's apparent that they're planning on writing proprietary software with GTK.
Only a selfish developer would ever use the GPL, for her own benefit.
To quote from RMS: "Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it."
What has use restrictions to do with RMS' idea of Free Software?
To a developer, using the code is using the software. A GPLd library can only be used by GPL applications. Considering that the GPL is the embodiment of RMS' idea of free software, I can only conclude that freedom to him means not allowing MIT, BSD, AL and MPL coders to use his readline library.
"Since when is messaging a commonly accepted tenet for an OOL?"
Since day one. A message is synonymous with a method. An object without methods is merely a record.
If technical issues were all that mattered for software, Bill Gates would not be a rich man.
:-)
If technical issues were all that mattered, Bill Gates would be a pauper!
KDE wasn't started to be a free alternative to CDE, it was started to be a free alternative AND be technically excellent. Likewise, GNOME wasn't started to be a pure GNU alternative to KDE, but to an alternative AND be technically excellent. If licensing is all that mattered, I could recode any given proprietary app in about a week. Of course, it would be buggy as hell and extremely crash prone (assuming it would even run), but hey! It's free so code or shut up
but doing nothing and having no free alternative such as GNU Linux BSD etc leaves us powerless to the whims of large greedy corporations.
Okay, I'm throwing away moderator points to reply, so listen up.
Freedom is not software any more than liberty is the piece of paper the US Constitution is written on. You and I have always had the freedom and liberty to create free software. There are no laws against it (patents not withstanding, but that's tangental). If GNU, Linux, BSD, et al never came about, guess what? Someone would come along and create them! That's exactly what Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds and thousands of others did.
The freedom is in the creating, not the creation. To imply that simply using Linux instead of Windows will free you is utterly ridiculous. I already have free speech. I don't need Richard Stallman to give it to me any more than I need him to supply me with air. And there is nothing Microsoft can do to take away my free speech.
Many of you out there used Windows once upon a time, and now use Linux or BSD. Did you have to break any laws to switch? Did Microsoft come to your house and break your kneecaps? Did they attach your wages? Were you, in any way, fearful of what Microsoft might do to you in retaliation for your rebellion? Of course not! That's because you were already free.
I don't know where this myth is coming from, but we are not powerless against the whims of people wealthier than ourselves. As long as we are free, they can do nothing to us against our will. And the only thing that can take away our freedom is crime and government. As it stands today, not one corporation in the world can tell me what to do with my life, liberty or property.
And before you all jump up waving your arms, I fully understand copyright does not let you do whatever you want with your own copy of Windows. Actually, you do. You can do whatever you want with your own copy, including giving it away to your neighbor. You just can't do whatever you want with the information, since that is not owned by you. Copyrights are a thorny thing. If information should not be owned, then by all means repeal copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets. But this will change nothing in reference to free software. Closed source software will still exist, only without government copyright protection, it will be encrypted and locked to registered users only.
Look at DVD's for example.
Okay, I am looking at it. But I don't see where my liberty is being taken away. If I don't like that I can only watch a DVD on certain players, then I can choose not to buy it. I don't go buy a beta video tape and then bitch that it won't run on my VHS player. Sony gains zero control over my life when I buy a Sony DVD. If DVD's are that onerous, then some group will create an alternative format. They're doing something similar right now with Ogg Vorbis. You don't even need hardware guys homing in on our turf. Just keep the DVD technology and create a new format to store the information with. This is not that hard to imagine. Remember DIVX? Remember how here at Slashdot we were warned that it would make us slaves to the corporations?
Personally, I think anarchy is a really bad idea...
So do I. Which is why I didn't advocate anarchy. I only advocated anarcho-economics (of either the capitalist, communist or other variety). I certainly want the government to do what it should rightly do, and this is to protect my life, liberty and property. But I want them out of economics. Keep the courts, the military, and the police. Keep the laws against force, violence and fraud.
And for those that think radical libertarianism leads to corporate domination, I also advocate the repeal of the incorporation laws.
Therefore, distros cannot both ship KDE _and_ QT at the same time.
Hmmm, can Sun distribute GNOME alongside its openwin? In any case, I'll play the devil's advocate and assume that Qt accompanies KDE and is simultaneously a module of KDE. What to do? Just read a few phrases back and distribute the source code for Qt! And reading over section 2, I find that works distinct from the Program do not have to fall under the GPL.