So, you're not interested in improving someone else's code, not interested in helping the community, not interested in any sort of the customary altruistic activities inherent in a gift-culture. Instead, you just want to take.
The author of a BSD source code can rerelease it at any time under any license he wishes. But because he doesn't, you would take his code and slap a different license on it against his wishes (not that you legally could). Ungrateful greedy lout!
"Non-free software will be used as a weapon to control and curtail your activities, and I don't feel like writing code that could legally be used against me in that manner."
Non-free software "controls" no one. And any curtailing it does is similar to the curtailing inherent in the GPL, Artistic, MPL, QPL, etc. Both have terms limiting how you can redistribute the software. Even the GPL has clauses limiting what an end "user" can or can't use (a GPL'd library has severe restrictions on its intended end user).
Explain how not writing code under the GPL can be legally used against you? As long as you follow all copyright laws (whether copyleft or not) and avoid software patents, how can any swarming unscrupulous corporate type do anything at all to you?
I have and will continue to bash the philosophy behind the GPL, but I don't recall every bashing the GPL itself (though I may have nitpicked it). However, every license serves its purpose, including proprietary licenses. If the GPL serves your purpose, use it. If the BSD is better for you then by all means use it. There's no sense arguing over which is "freer" since neither has anything at all to do with political liberty.
Every club, organization or UG I have ever belonged to had a membership fee. Most of these groups had two tiers: paid members and unpaid guests. Unpaid guests did not get to attend business sessions or vote on any issues. Every group also had a set of bylaws.
If the TLUG did not follow their bylaws when increasing their free, shame on them. But if the complaints are coming from the unpaid guests, and not members, then shame on the freeloaders.
For all of you people that still think not sharing something is an evil act, please graduate out of your kindergarten sharing mentality.
Before you confuse hoarding with non-sharing, take a look at your own covetousness. I have seen hundreds of AC comments on the order of "XYZ needs to GPL their software so I can get to use it." You folks aren't interested in sharing, you're interested in the forceable redistribution of wealth.
WILFULL negligence is an act. It is an evil act. But it is not the same thing as not sharing.
"GPL gets you this. There is no reason why GPL software can't be used in a commercial setting."
In this case then, there are many proprietary licenses that count as freely redistributable as well:-)
I could care less which license you choose to use. I'm all for freedom of choice. The key word here is "choice". How can a choice of licenses be called non-free?
By the way, I didn't mention communism at all in my post. Where did you get this?
I think it's time you figured out was libertarianism is before you make further bizarre and irrational statements like that
Having freedom over one's own body in no way, in any philosophy, leads to a conclusion that murder is okay. (Well okay, a pro-lifer would disagree, but the pro-choicer does not view a fetus as a human being).
"But why would you, if you were the author of free software, want to permit someone to take your software which you have contributed to the community, and make a proprietary product out of it?"
Because I don't believe in the tenet that proprietary developers are evil. If they proprietarize my work I still have my source code.
"I'd prefer that if someone were going to improve or use something I had contributed, that they should be required to return their changes to the community."
They can do whatever they want to with their code. My code still exists. Their improvements are theirs, and my original is still mine. I have no desire to tell other people what to do with their code. Sharing is good, stealing is evil, non-sharing is neither good nor evil since it is not an act. This is not kindergarten where you are forced under pain of confiscation to share your cookies.
They fact that proprieatry developers are not part of the community is inconsequential. Community involvement is not necessary for freedom. "The Public Good" is just an excuse used by the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
And are you saying that GNU users have any less disrespect for BSD? From your own post it appears that you have none, using words like "bizarre" and "fringe".
The fact is, GNU tools are not 100% redistributable. This was intentional on RMS's part. BSD wants their tools to be 100% redistributable, to anyone, anywhere, including commercial and proprietary uses.
If you believe that proprietary software is epitome of evil and pestilence, fine. But some people don't feel that way. The don't hold to the religious tenet. It doesn't bother them that proprietary developers use and re-release their software. BSD developers want to share the software with no strings attached.
This is why a non GNU grep is important, so that the core FreeBSD distro can be 100% redistributable, not 99% or 98%.
Patents, whether for software or mousetraps, must be novel and unintuitive to an expert in the field. You just can't do it in a different way and expect a patent to hold up. The US Patent office works by issuing a patent, then seeing if it holds up.
When the LZW was invented, it was novel and unintuitive. Thus it qualified for a patent. This patent has also been upheld over time. It may seem a trivial algorithm now, but it wasn't then.
The definition of freedom, according to the AC: "People should have the right to think what they want, say what they want, and do what they want, as long as it agrees with what I think, say and do."
I can't believe these people sometimes. Qt frees their source code and you're still bitching about it. What do you want? A rubber biscuit?
You've made the common mistake of confusing commercial for proprietary.
The old Qt license wouldn't let you create commercial apps without paying for it, but the new one is 100% Free Software. This means you can write a commercial app as long as it's Free and/or Open Source.
But if you really, really want to write a proprietary app under Qt, just go buy a proprietary Qt license and have at it. Look carefully at the KDE libraries though, since they're (L)GPL. Same thing goes for the GTK.
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.
Okay, get your imagination juices flowing. Imagine that Troll Tech released their free edition under the GPL instead of the QPL...
...nothing is different. The X11 version is GPL and the Win version is closed. Same 'ol thing. The license doesn't matter, the Freedom does. Get a clue.
People who want Qt or any other Free Software project to die are not interested in Freedom at all. They are the worst sort of hypocrites and are no better than Bill the Gates.
Just exactly what is your argument? That Qt isn't free? WRONG. It's 100% free for developing Free Software. So what if you can't use the free version to develop proprietary software. You can't do that under the GPL anyway. But you are free to develop commerical open-source and free applications. Or maybe you're pissed that Qt costs so much for commercial development. Think again. Price out some **real** commercial tools, not just motif/JBuilder/VC++. If it was overpriced no one would buy it and Troll would go out of business. But guess what, they're not out of business, so people are buying it. If it makes you feel any better, just think of all the money they're losing by not catering to the AC market.
Hmmm, I like this idea! A few modifications of course. GNU utilities should be OS neutral (of course), so it should be generic enough to handle packages for non-Linux and non-GNU systems. Make it work with BSD, Solaris, etc., and you'll have a winner. Have a low-level translation layer, on top of which would be a LSB layer or a BSD layer, etc. Such a system could even be adaptable to d.f. systems like Windows.
It needs to be generic, and it will probably need a project site to upload various.gpm packages to until the distros catch on. Also create a generic packager on the order of automake/autoconf (autopack?).
I'm already working on my own projects. Anyone out there interested in taking the ball and running with it?
Yes folks, you heard me right. Qt is free for use on Windows. Not the Windows version though:-)
But you certainly can port the whole X version to Windows if you'd like. Nothing is forbidding this.
Just in case you don't know, there is a very, very important reason why the Windows version is not Free: Windows users don't pay for Free Software. If Troll Tech released it to Windows for free, their entire cash flow would disappear overnight. And don't talk about supporting it through support. Qt users don't need any support.
1) Free redistribution. Yes 2) Source code. Yes. 3) Derived works. Yes. 4) Integrity of author's source sode. Yes. 5) No Discrimination against persons or groups. Yes. 6) No Discrimination against fields of endeavor. Yes. 7) Distribution of license. Yes. 8) License must not be specific to product. Yes. 9) License must not contaminate other software. Yes. 10) Example licenses. N/A
To quote Bruce Perens, "Troll Tech released a fully Open Source license for Qt".
So yes, I do still think that Qt is Open Source Software and I still think it is Free Software.
Pre Qt2.0 used Motif or Windows style widgets. They were virtually identical to their counterparts. So don't blame Qt, blame Motif and Windows.
Post Qt2.0 has fantastic styles! I mean WOW! It comes standard with Motif, Windows, CDE and Platinum styles and additional styles are extremely easy to add. For examples, check out some of the KDE2.0 screenshots.
By the way, THEY'RE NOT KEYWORDS!!! If they were keywords, Qt apps wouldn't be able to compile under g++.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if your code is GPL, the slimeballs can sue anyway! Doesn't matter if the code if GPL, BSD or BFD. Close but no cigar...
So, you're not interested in improving someone else's code, not interested in helping the community, not interested in any sort of the customary altruistic activities inherent in a gift-culture. Instead, you just want to take.
The author of a BSD source code can rerelease it at any time under any license he wishes. But because he doesn't, you would take his code and slap a different license on it against his wishes (not that you legally could). Ungrateful greedy lout!
"Non-free software will be used as a weapon to control and curtail your activities, and I don't feel like writing code that could legally be used against me in that manner."
Non-free software "controls" no one. And any curtailing it does is similar to the curtailing inherent in the GPL, Artistic, MPL, QPL, etc. Both have terms limiting how you can redistribute the software. Even the GPL has clauses limiting what an end "user" can or can't use (a GPL'd library has severe restrictions on its intended end user).
Explain how not writing code under the GPL can be legally used against you? As long as you follow all copyright laws (whether copyleft or not) and avoid software patents, how can any swarming unscrupulous corporate type do anything at all to you?
I have and will continue to bash the philosophy behind the GPL, but I don't recall every bashing the GPL itself (though I may have nitpicked it). However, every license serves its purpose, including proprietary licenses. If the GPL serves your purpose, use it. If the BSD is better for you then by all means use it. There's no sense arguing over which is "freer" since neither has anything at all to do with political liberty.
I'm sure millions of people are applauding this removal of "obnoxious" advertisement, however...
...it is still considered good manners to attribute your sources.
Every club, organization or UG I have ever belonged to had a membership fee. Most of these groups had two tiers: paid members and unpaid guests. Unpaid guests did not get to attend business sessions or vote on any issues. Every group also had a set of bylaws.
If the TLUG did not follow their bylaws when increasing their free, shame on them. But if the complaints are coming from the unpaid guests, and not members, then shame on the freeloaders.
For all of you people that still think not sharing something is an evil act, please graduate out of your kindergarten sharing mentality.
Before you confuse hoarding with non-sharing, take a look at your own covetousness. I have seen hundreds of AC comments on the order of "XYZ needs to GPL their software so I can get to use it." You folks aren't interested in sharing, you're interested in the forceable redistribution of wealth.
WILFULL negligence is an act. It is an evil act. But it is not the same thing as not sharing.
And if you believe that this is slavery then you're an idiot.
"GPL gets you this. There is no reason why GPL software can't be used in a commercial setting."
:-)
In this case then, there are many proprietary licenses that count as freely redistributable as well
I could care less which license you choose to use. I'm all for freedom of choice. The key word here is "choice". How can a choice of licenses be called non-free?
By the way, I didn't mention communism at all in my post. Where did you get this?
The probability of your scenario is so remote that it's not worth pondering. However, philosophy is about pondering the improbable, so...
This instead classifies as willful negligence leading to death. This is what makes it evil. The non-act of non-sharing has nothing to do with it.
I think it's time you figured out was libertarianism is before you make further bizarre and irrational statements like that
Having freedom over one's own body in no way, in any philosophy, leads to a conclusion that murder is okay. (Well okay, a pro-lifer would disagree, but the pro-choicer does not view a fetus as a human being).
"But why would you, if you were the author of free software, want to permit someone to take your software which you have contributed to the community, and make a proprietary product out of it?"
Because I don't believe in the tenet that proprietary developers are evil. If they proprietarize my work I still have my source code.
"I'd prefer that if someone were going to improve or use something I had contributed, that they should be required to return their changes to the community."
They can do whatever they want to with their code. My code still exists. Their improvements are theirs, and my original is still mine. I have no desire to tell other people what to do with their code. Sharing is good, stealing is evil, non-sharing is neither good nor evil since it is not an act. This is not kindergarten where you are forced under pain of confiscation to share your cookies.
They fact that proprieatry developers are not part of the community is inconsequential. Community involvement is not necessary for freedom. "The Public Good" is just an excuse used by the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
And are you saying that GNU users have any less disrespect for BSD? From your own post it appears that you have none, using words like "bizarre" and "fringe".
The fact is, GNU tools are not 100% redistributable. This was intentional on RMS's part. BSD wants their tools to be 100% redistributable, to anyone, anywhere, including commercial and proprietary uses.
If you believe that proprietary software is epitome of evil and pestilence, fine. But some people don't feel that way. The don't hold to the religious tenet. It doesn't bother them that proprietary developers use and re-release their software. BSD developers want to share the software with no strings attached.
This is why a non GNU grep is important, so that the core FreeBSD distro can be 100% redistributable, not 99% or 98%.
Patents, whether for software or mousetraps, must be novel and unintuitive to an expert in the field. You just can't do it in a different way and expect a patent to hold up. The US Patent office works by issuing a patent, then seeing if it holds up.
When the LZW was invented, it was novel and unintuitive. Thus it qualified for a patent. This patent has also been upheld over time. It may seem a trivial algorithm now, but it wasn't then.
Take a library. Release it under the GPL for Free Software development. Then release a proprietary version for proprietary development.
People will still bitch about it. As long as a proprietary version exists, they'll fight against the horrible injustice of it all.
And yes, I have read the GPL/LGPL. And I've also read RMS's opinion that the LGPL shouldn't be used anymore.
Even better, make it BSD, or Artistic, or QPL!
The definition of freedom, according to the AC: "People should have the right to think what they want, say what they want, and do what they want, as long as it agrees with what I think, say and do."
I can't believe these people sometimes. Qt frees their source code and you're still bitching about it. What do you want? A rubber biscuit?
You've made the common mistake of confusing commercial for proprietary.
The old Qt license wouldn't let you create commercial apps without paying for it, but the new one is 100% Free Software. This means you can write a commercial app as long as it's Free and/or Open Source.
But if you really, really want to write a proprietary app under Qt, just go buy a proprietary Qt license and have at it. Look carefully at the KDE libraries though, since they're (L)GPL. Same thing goes for the GTK.
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.
Okay, get your imagination juices flowing. Imagine that Troll Tech released their free edition under the GPL instead of the QPL...
...nothing is different. The X11 version is GPL and the Win version is closed. Same 'ol thing. The license doesn't matter, the Freedom does. Get a clue.
People who want Qt or any other Free Software project to die are not interested in Freedom at all. They are the worst sort of hypocrites and are no better than Bill the Gates.
Just exactly what is your argument? That Qt isn't free? WRONG. It's 100% free for developing Free Software. So what if you can't use the free version to develop proprietary software. You can't do that under the GPL anyway. But you are free to develop commerical open-source and free applications. Or maybe you're pissed that Qt costs so much for commercial development. Think again. Price out some **real** commercial tools, not just motif/JBuilder/VC++. If it was overpriced no one would buy it and Troll would go out of business. But guess what, they're not out of business, so people are buying it. If it makes you feel any better, just think of all the money they're losing by not catering to the AC market.
Hmmm, I like this idea! A few modifications of course. GNU utilities should be OS neutral (of course), so it should be generic enough to handle packages for non-Linux and non-GNU systems. Make it work with BSD, Solaris, etc., and you'll have a winner. Have a low-level translation layer, on top of which would be a LSB layer or a BSD layer, etc. Such a system could even be adaptable to d.f. systems like Windows.
.gpm packages to until the distros catch on. Also create a generic packager on the order of automake/autoconf (autopack?).
It needs to be generic, and it will probably need a project site to upload various
I'm already working on my own projects. Anyone out there interested in taking the ball and running with it?
Yes folks, you heard me right. Qt is free for use on Windows. Not the Windows version though :-)
But you certainly can port the whole X version to Windows if you'd like. Nothing is forbidding this.
Just in case you don't know, there is a very, very important reason why the Windows version is not Free: Windows users don't pay for Free Software. If Troll Tech released it to Windows for free, their entire cash flow would disappear overnight. And don't talk about supporting it through support. Qt users don't need any support.
The **OLD** Qt license forbade commercial use, but the new one, called QPL, does not. Thus, it follows the Open Source Definition. No rules were bent.
Don't argue with me about it. Talk to Bruce Perens.
1) Free redistribution. Yes
2) Source code. Yes.
3) Derived works. Yes.
4) Integrity of author's source sode. Yes.
5) No Discrimination against persons or groups. Yes.
6) No Discrimination against fields of endeavor. Yes.
7) Distribution of license. Yes.
8) License must not be specific to product. Yes.
9) License must not contaminate other software. Yes.
10) Example licenses. N/A
To quote Bruce Perens, "Troll Tech released a fully Open Source license for Qt".
So yes, I do still think that Qt is Open Source Software and I still think it is Free Software.
Pre Qt2.0 used Motif or Windows style widgets. They were virtually identical to their counterparts. So don't blame Qt, blame Motif and Windows.
Post Qt2.0 has fantastic styles! I mean WOW! It comes standard with Motif, Windows, CDE and Platinum styles and additional styles are extremely easy to add. For examples, check out some of the KDE2.0 screenshots.
By the way, THEY'RE NOT KEYWORDS!!! If they were keywords, Qt apps wouldn't be able to compile under g++.