it [the QPL] doesn't preserve my freedoms, it's not free. The BSD license doesn't preserve your freedoms so by your logic the BSD license isn't free. This is wrong hence your statement is false. (Proof by contradiction)
This patch 'requirement' has been changed into a 'recommendation', i.e. TrollTech recommends using patches (or CVS). The only requirement is that the new, non-TrollTech code be clearly marked as such. If this was true that would be great, I'm not saying it's not true but I just reread the QPL 1.0 by following your link (it's pretty simple!) and I see no clause that permits me to redistribute a modified version of the source code, only source code with patches (clause 3).
To be honest I didn't know about clause 4 which allows me to distribute "machine-executable forms of modified versions of the Software" under conditions I find perfectly reasonable. This is what is really important to me.
The QPL is pretty much like the GPL, and the main (or even only) reason why RMS thinks the current QPL is not GPL compatible, is that it doesn't allow 'secret' in-house improvements that aren't distributed outside e.g. a respective company. I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about this and have come to the same conclusion you have, this is a flaw in the GPL, moreover it's a serious one. I am willing (hopeful!) to here arguments to the contrary.
BTW if what you've said about the patch clause being changed into a recommendation is true then IMHO the QPL is freer than the GPL! (In the sense that it provides greater protection to the software user).
I really would like confirmation about the patch clause being changed into a recommendation.
The poster (their first language is probably not english*) was trying to say that Ettrich's post was in the context of a discussion about whether it was worth porting AbiWord to use the KDE libs. In this context his comments were appropriate.
*Many KDE developers and users don't speak english as their first language or don't speak engish at all. Hence the under-representation of KDE in english language media.
Your unfair, repugnant, and inappropriate bashing of the KDE project was a major factor in my choosing not to contribute to the GNOME project.
His bashing on other free software projects on that list are as bad as the ones I have been criticized for This is simply not true.
(hey, it was my *opinion*). The expression of your opinion in press releases has had unfortunate consequences. Chiefly making it significantly harder for the KDE and GNOME projects to co-operate and set shared standards.
When I compiled QT, Trolltech was moving to a "free" license which ultimately turned out to be "not quite free" (the same way Velveeta is not quite cheese). I've since never needed the QT libraries, so I don't use them.
Was? I believe the only changes to the QPL have been concessions to requests to make it more free, and QT 2.0 is still intended to be released under the QPL.
"not quite free"? RMS said that a QT released under the QPL would be free software.
He also said that the QPL is GPL incompatible, due to the patch clause and the lack of a privacy clause. Others disagree, I don't know who to believe. I've spent hours reading the GPL too.
Gnome has as much a place as KDE. Agreed to a certain extent.
I think choice is a good thing, and I would like Linux developers to be able to choose which set of development libraries they use (GNOME libs or KDE libs or...), and have confidence that the apps they create will work (integrate with other aps) irrespective of what desktop environment (or window manager) their users choose.
On the other hand (in my opinion) KDE has earnt a place as a usable desktop while GNOME has not (yet), primarily due to the premature GNOME 1.0 annoucement.
The competition between them has made both _much_ better in spite of the childish jabs from either side. Miguel can sometimes overdo the advocacy, but I have also heard (at second hand, admittedly) hair-raising flame-bait from core KDE developers as well. I agree that the competition has been good. However you seem to be implying that core KDE developers have engaged in a similar level of GNOME bashing as Miguel has in KDE bashing. This is simply not true.
Miguel has repeatedly made derogatory comments about the KDE project in public (official) annoucements. (and in doing so has done a disservice to other GNOME developers that wish to cooperate with KDE)
I challenge you to show me one single public KDE annoucement that makes even a single derogatory comment about the GNOME project.
As far as informal KDE discussions go, yes I have seen anti-GNOME sentiments expressed, (not by KDE core developers though). But so what? The official KDE project policy seems to me to be one of co-operation and friendly competition.
Furthermore I believe this is an honest policy and reflects the true feelings of kde-developers, core or otherwise.
Hmm, I didn't see this announcement. But if this was the case then it makes it much easier to understand your actions. I apologize if this was in fact the case.
It's just that I'm a bit annoyed by the whole situation, and that as soon as files are publicly made available a release will be declared, the ftp site will be overloaded, and the mirrors won't have time to sync.
Again, no 1.1.1 was not released anytime in April.
Some files in a 1_1_1 directory were released during April, (I downloaded these on April 27 and installed them). But putting some files on an ftp site does not constitute an official release, at least not for a large project like KDE.
Though you may have meant to do well by announcing the release of 1.1.1 at freshmeat.net, you actually did considerable harm. Those files were intended to become the official 1.1.1 release as long as nothing was terribly wrong with them, (in fact some changes had to be made). By preannouncing the release you mislead many people into believing a release had actually occurred, what if those files had contained buggy programs that could do damage to someones system!? (I assure you this is quite possible when last minute changes are being made).
Your actions also made life difficult for people who host mirrors. Because of people like you the files can no longer be uploaded to the main ftp server a day early (so that mirrors may sync). Hence we arrived at a situation whereby the release has to be made before mirrors can sync, and many people are left in the unenviable position of desperately searching for an updated mirror, (when there is none).
I urge you to be more careful in the future and think of the affect your actions will have on others.
1.1.1 wasn't released on April 24 or 26. It was just released (3 May), (some people jumped the gun and thought it had been though), and, no, they won't remove this release.
Good to here that pre1 is stable for you.
KFM has full javascript support
on
KDE 1.1.1 is out
·
· Score: 1
But some websites will detect that the browser your using isn't IE or NS and hence assume that javascript isn't supported.
You will need to change the browser identification string using "Options->KFM Configuration->User Agent" to fool the site into thinking that your using IE or NS.
Solutions, (You probably want to read this).
on
KDE 1.1.1 is out
·
· Score: 1
I haven't experienced/noticed problems 2 & 3 but problem 1 is definitely annoying. Here's a work-around: Warning: This will close all your kfms (that is filemanagers)
Open a terminal and type killall kfm; kfm &
This will free all the memory kfm allocated and make your system responsive again.
Also if you are using linux take a look at kruiser (formerly known as kexplorer), it is an alternative filemanager, and boy is it fast! (Actually it's probably just what you need to fix your problem 2)
It is available at: ftp://ftp.us.kde.org/pub/kde/unstable/apps/multi media/cdrom/kexplorer-0.2.tar.gz
I'm sorry but this article, and the philosophy it espouses is dangerous.
It's okay when read in a reflective mood, "just to keep things in perspective". But taking it serious would be foolish.
Primitive cultures were and are NOT peaceful idyllic communities.
They are disease ridden hell pits of starvation and oppression. Take some time and look into the conditions in which lower class India live. The cow dung used to cook emits poison toxins which slowly kill as they heat. Furthermore if you want to see real inquity, between sexes and ages that's your place.
I'll take this 'hi-tech' society anyday. Where I can seek out the few like minded people that exist in this world, where I can spend hours everyday experimenting and creating, exercising my mind. After considering the alternatives I think it's a pretty good way to live.
From my point of view that was an excellent criticism, succint, restrained and mature. If Dylan is as good a language as that was a critic, then perhaps you should consider writing some bindings and contributing an app to one of the (high profile) free software desktop environments.
QT Free Edition 2.0 (that the developmental version of KDE, KDE 2.0 uses) will be free when officially released under the QPL, as promised by Troll Tech.
See http://slashdot.org/articles/98/11/22/1029225.shtm l for RMS's statement that a QT released under the QPL will be free software.
I guess most people aren't living on the edge like me and are in fact using the older version of QT which is proprietary.
I am using QT 2.0 from CVS, but I'm not certain that counts as an official release, and hence I'm not certain that it has been released under the QPL (yet).
I'm no expert, but if I recall correctly, KDE uses QT, which I believe is a proprietary Damn right your no expert. I have the full source code to QT Free Edition 2.0 (CVS version), and I don't work for TrollTech. You can get it too, from http://www.troll.no/dl/qtfree-cvs.cgi
Like GPL'd software you aren't allowed to create (link) proprietary software with it. (Or more exactly than that you aren't allowed to distribute such proprietary software). In order to do that you must purchase the non-free version of QT which is distributed under a different license.
Tell your friends, tell the world! Why can't people understand this?
QT Free Edition (that KDE uses) is free software
That's part of the truth
on
Red Hat 6.0
·
· Score: 1
Firstly let me apologize for the inflammatory nature of my earlier comments. I responded to what I considered an unfair and untrue attack on KDE, and perhaps I took it personally.
I found your support of keeping the GNOME libs "library" GPL'd informative, but it has not convinced me that the libs will remain LGPL'd. Aren't your views incompatible with RMS's? Perhaps you could be persuaded to change your mind if only you could see how immoral proprietary software is? Are not intellectual properties laws (which proprietary software depend on) clouding the signals of the market, forcing it towards to creation of monopolies and away from its true point of equilibrium? Surely you would be better off contributing towards a GPL'd branch of the libraries. If only one core library developer contributes under the GPL instead of the LGPL wouldn't it place proprietary vendors in a difficult position?
Such arguments can be very convincing, and perhaps are 'right'.
More importantly I wish you the best of luck with your projects whatever they may be. I suspect our goals are similar. We shouldn't be arguing we should be coding! (and increasing our efforts to work towards common standards)
LGPL -> GPL conversion
on
Red Hat 6.0
·
· Score: 1
Also I have a question: if I contribute code to an LGPLed project, can someone else change to project to GPL without my consent? Honest question, I don't know the answer. I believe the original license holder has a legal right of ownership to all works derived from their work.
This means they can _re_license an LGPL library derived from their work under any license they wish, including the GPL.
You may distribute work derived from GPL'd work, (under certain conditions layed out in the GPL). Doing so enters you into a legally binding agreement with the original licenser. As long as your adhere to the conditions of the GPL you may continue to distribute derived works for as long as you wish.
Perhaps the original licenser may choose to stop publishing their work under the GPL. This wouldn't affect you as you have already entered into a legally binding agreement. I don't think you can grant the rights you have received to others though.
This is my honest opinion, but as you can see the situation is simple, I could be wrong.
I am not a lawyer and these comments should not be construed as legal advice.
You couldn't be more wrong.
on
Red Hat 6.0
·
· Score: 1
Um. The FSF is *not* phasing out the LGPL. Apparently, you haven't read anything about the name change Please provide evidence of this. If you are speaking on behalf of the FSF please state your name. I find this assertion of dubious value. RMS the founder of the FSF stated on gnu.announce (see http://slashdot.org/articles/99/02/01/1730200.shtm l for the full story)
"If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have no parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free programs. This will be a significant advantage for further free software development, and some projects will decide to make software free in order to use these libraries. University projects can easily be influenced; nowadays, as companies begin to consider making software free, even some commercial projects can be influenced in this way.
Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.
But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition."
In fact part of me believes he is right, that his assertions while costly are morally justifiable.
As RMS is the founder of the FSF I take his official statements on gnu.announce as being representative of those of the FSF. Now the GNU project is a FSF project, and I expect the imperatives laid down in such statements to be applied to all parts of the GNU project, including GNOME. (Remember this annoucement was made on gnu.annouce)
You couldn't be more wrong.
on
Red Hat 6.0
·
· Score: 1
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.
Firstly you are confusing commercial with proprietary. You are free to release commercial apps with QT as long as they are open. (Ala Cygnus style).
Secondly remember GNOME stands for _GNU_ Network Object Environment. That is GNU as in FSF supported. FSF as in founded by RMS. Now RMS has clearly stated his view on proprietary software time and time again, he believes it to be immoral. In fact he has changed the LGPL license, so that instead of standing for Library Gnu Public License it stands for _Lesser_ GPL. That is, it is deprecated, and RMS (and hence FSF and hence GNOME) will attempt to phase that license out, replacing it with the GPL.
If RMS succeeds (and I think he will) it will mean that developing proprietary apps for GNOME is illegal.
Please check your facts before posting something so blatantly wrong.
Put away your flame guns and just listen for once, you Linux wanna-be software designer jerks, lets talk software development Many posters here are at/. post intelligent comments. Many free-software programmers create excellent software. I find the tone of your comment derogatory and offensive.
Let's talk how KDE and GNOME (which sucks, KDE rocks!) I have been contributing to KDE for a few months now, and there is nothing I hate more than hearing "GNOME sucks". You discredit both projects with such mindless and destructive advocacy.
Let's talk "where is the visual development tools for Linux". You may be interested in KDevelop http://www.cs.unipotsdam.de/~smeier/kdevelop/ "an easy to use IDE (Integrated Development Enviroment) for Unix/X11". Perhaps contributing to such a project would do more good than destructive criticism.
Let's talk about "how can I make a custom control?" You may be interested in OpenParts http://developer.kde.org/openparts/html/openparts. html, again contributing OpenPart components would be of infinitely more benefit than ignorant babble.
Let's talk about... locally and remotely. Again see the above technologies.
COM and ActiveX do make increadibly easy and powerful software development on a large scale Incorrect, COM is not suitable for large scale deployment. Hence the development of COM+ and MTS, for more information I suggest you read "How Microsoft Transaction Server Changes the COM Programming Model" by David Chappell in the January '98 edition of Microsoft Systems Journal (a good mag) which states "it's arguable whether COM makes creating software a whole lot easier. In particular, building powerful COM servers can be daunting."
Before bashing M$ technologies, why don't you try them out first. Not all, I repeat, not all are that bad Though it may seem suprising, despite the fact that I develop free software for *nix my day job is as a Windows Programmer. I expend considerable effort to ship products on time in an enviroment that is closed and hence hostile towards productivity.
The prettiest IDE is not substitue for the source.
KDE is free for commercial use
on
CDE vs Gnome
·
· Score: 1
KDE is free (as in no cost) for commercial use.
The applications are GPL'd. The libs are LGPL'd with the exception of QT which is QPL'd.
You could even distribute proprietary apps for KDE (though you would have to pay Troll Tech a grand).
I wouldn't say the KDE is free (as in freedom), but that isn't saying much as I wouldn't say that the GPL gives you freedom either. (As it attempts to restrict proprietary derivative distributions, privacy loophole excepted)
BTW QT 2.0 (which KDE 2.0 is based on) is fully themeable. KDE 1.1 can be made to look pretty as the kde easter egg shows.
I've though about this too. Here are some additional enhancements.
Allow me to indicate how much I trust each moderation group by choosing a scaling factor (from 0 to 1), moderation by members within a group will be scaled by this factor.
Allow moderators to moderate articles on the front page. Allow me to set a threshold for the front page.
So being in Australia I could give a lot of trust to an Australian moderator group and hence see more articles (and comments) about the region I live in.
Slashdot Mirror
it [the QPL] doesn't preserve my freedoms, it's not free.
The BSD license doesn't preserve your freedoms so by your logic the BSD license isn't free. This is wrong hence your statement is false. (Proof by contradiction)
The QPL is a free software license.
This patch 'requirement' has been changed into a 'recommendation', i.e. TrollTech recommends using patches (or CVS). The only requirement is that the new, non-TrollTech code be clearly marked as such.
If this was true that would be great, I'm not saying it's not true but I just reread the QPL 1.0 by following your link (it's pretty simple!) and I see no clause that permits me to redistribute a modified version of the source code, only source code with patches (clause 3).
To be honest I didn't know about clause 4 which allows me to distribute "machine-executable forms of modified versions of the Software" under conditions I find perfectly reasonable. This is what is really important to me.
The QPL is pretty much like the GPL, and the main (or even only) reason why RMS thinks the current QPL is not GPL compatible, is that it doesn't allow 'secret' in-house improvements that aren't distributed outside e.g. a respective company.
I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about this and have come to the same conclusion you have, this is a flaw in the GPL, moreover it's a serious one. I am willing (hopeful!) to here arguments to the contrary.
BTW if what you've said about the patch clause being changed into a recommendation is true then IMHO the QPL is freer than the GPL! (In the sense that it provides greater protection to the software user).
I really would like confirmation about the patch clause being changed into a recommendation.
This comment should not have been moderated down.
The poster (their first language is probably not english*) was trying to say that Ettrich's post was in the context of a discussion about whether it was worth porting AbiWord to use the KDE libs. In this context his comments were appropriate.
*Many KDE developers and users don't speak english as their first language or don't speak engish at all. Hence the under-representation of KDE in english language media.
Your unfair, repugnant, and inappropriate bashing of the KDE project was a major factor in my choosing not to contribute to the GNOME project.
His bashing on other free software projects on that list are as bad as the ones I have been criticized for
This is simply not true.
(hey, it was my *opinion*).
The expression of your opinion in press releases has had unfortunate consequences. Chiefly making it significantly harder for the KDE and GNOME projects to co-operate and set shared standards.
When I compiled QT, Trolltech was moving to a "free" license which ultimately turned out to be "not quite free" (the same way Velveeta is not quite cheese). I've since never needed the QT libraries, so I don't use them.
Was? I believe the only changes to the QPL have been concessions to requests to make it more free, and QT 2.0 is still intended to be released under the QPL.
"not quite free"? RMS said that a QT released under the QPL would be free software.
He also said that the QPL is GPL incompatible, due to the patch clause and the lack of a privacy clause. Others disagree, I don't know who to believe. I've spent hours reading the GPL too.
Gnome has as much a place as KDE.
...), and have confidence that the apps they create will work (integrate with other aps) irrespective of what desktop environment (or window manager) their users choose.
Agreed to a certain extent.
I think choice is a good thing, and I would like Linux developers to be able to choose which set of development libraries they use (GNOME libs or KDE libs or
On the other hand (in my opinion) KDE has earnt a place as a usable desktop while GNOME has not (yet), primarily due to the premature GNOME 1.0 annoucement.
The competition between them has made both _much_ better in spite of the childish jabs from either side. Miguel can sometimes overdo the advocacy, but I have also heard (at second hand, admittedly) hair-raising flame-bait from core KDE developers as well.
I agree that the competition has been good. However you seem to be implying that core KDE developers have engaged in a similar level of GNOME bashing as Miguel has in KDE bashing. This is simply not true.
Miguel has repeatedly made derogatory comments about the KDE project in public (official) annoucements. (and in doing so has done a disservice to other GNOME developers that wish to cooperate with KDE)
I challenge you to show me one single public KDE annoucement that makes even a single derogatory comment about the GNOME project.
As far as informal KDE discussions go, yes I have seen anti-GNOME sentiments expressed, (not by KDE core developers though). But so what? The official KDE project policy seems to me to be one of co-operation and friendly competition.
Furthermore I believe this is an honest policy and reflects the true feelings of kde-developers, core or otherwise.
">and the release notes from the homepage. "
Hmm, I didn't see this announcement. But if this was the case then it makes it much easier to understand your actions. I apologize if this was in fact the case.
It's just that I'm a bit annoyed by the whole situation, and that as soon as files are publicly made available a release will be declared, the ftp site will be overloaded, and the mirrors won't have time to sync.
Again, no 1.1.1 was not released anytime in April.
Some files in a 1_1_1 directory were released during April, (I downloaded these on April 27 and installed them). But putting some files on an ftp site does not constitute an official release, at least not for a large project like KDE.
Though you may have meant to do well by announcing the release of 1.1.1 at freshmeat.net, you actually did considerable harm. Those files were intended to become the official 1.1.1 release as long as nothing was terribly wrong with them, (in fact some changes had to be made). By preannouncing the release you mislead many people into believing a release had actually occurred, what if those files had contained buggy programs that could do damage to someones system!? (I assure you this is quite possible when last minute changes are being made).
Your actions also made life difficult for people who host mirrors. Because of people like you the files can no longer be uploaded to the main ftp server a day early (so that mirrors may sync). Hence we arrived at a situation whereby the release has to be made before mirrors can sync, and many people are left in the unenviable position of desperately searching for an updated mirror, (when there is none).
I urge you to be more careful in the future and think of the affect your actions will have on others.
1.1.1 wasn't released on April 24 or 26. It was just released (3 May), (some people jumped the gun and thought it had been though), and, no, they won't remove this release.
Good to here that pre1 is stable for you.
But some websites will detect that the browser your using isn't IE or NS and hence assume that javascript isn't supported.
You will need to change the browser identification string using "Options->KFM Configuration->User Agent" to fool the site into thinking that your using IE or NS.
I haven't experienced/noticed problems 2 & 3 but problem 1 is definitely annoying. Here's a work-around:
i media/cdrom/kexplorer-0.2.tar.gz
Warning: This will close all your kfms (that is filemanagers)
Open a terminal and type
killall kfm; kfm &
This will free all the memory kfm allocated and make your system responsive again.
Also if you are using linux take a look at kruiser (formerly known as kexplorer), it is an alternative filemanager, and boy is it fast! (Actually it's probably just what you need to fix your problem 2)
It is available at:
ftp://ftp.us.kde.org/pub/kde/unstable/apps/mult
Hope this helps.
I'm afraid you'll have to stay hungry tonight troll as I won't be feeding you.
Perhaps you could go somewhere else?
I'm sorry but this article, and the philosophy it espouses is dangerous.
It's okay when read in a reflective mood, "just to keep things in perspective". But taking it serious would be foolish.
Primitive cultures were and are NOT peaceful idyllic communities.
They are disease ridden hell pits of starvation and oppression. Take some time and look into the conditions in which lower class India live. The cow dung used to cook emits poison toxins which slowly kill as they heat. Furthermore if you want to see real inquity, between sexes and ages that's your place.
I'll take this 'hi-tech' society anyday. Where I can seek out the few like minded people that exist in this world, where I can spend hours everyday experimenting and creating, exercising my mind. After considering the alternatives I think it's a pretty good way to live.
From my point of view that was an excellent criticism, succint, restrained and mature. If Dylan is as good a language as that was a critic, then perhaps you should consider writing some bindings and contributing an app to one of the (high profile) free software desktop environments.
Sorry found myself getting carried away for a second there.
Excellent post. Completely agree.
Ok a went a tiny little bit to far.
m l for RMS's statement that a QT released under the QPL will be free software.
QT Free Edition 2.0 (that the developmental version of KDE, KDE 2.0 uses) will be free when officially released under the QPL, as promised by Troll Tech.
See http://slashdot.org/articles/98/11/22/1029225.sht
I guess most people aren't living on the edge like me and are in fact using the older version of QT which is proprietary.
I am using QT 2.0 from CVS, but I'm not certain that counts as an official release, and hence I'm not certain that it has been released under the QPL (yet).
I'm no expert, but if I recall correctly, KDE uses QT, which I believe is a proprietary
Damn right your no expert. I have the full source code to QT Free Edition 2.0 (CVS version), and I don't work for TrollTech. You can get it too, from http://www.troll.no/dl/qtfree-cvs.cgi
Like GPL'd software you aren't allowed to create (link) proprietary software with it. (Or more exactly than that you aren't allowed to distribute such proprietary software). In order to do that you must purchase the non-free version of QT which is distributed under a different license.
Tell your friends, tell the world! Why can't people understand this?
QT Free Edition (that KDE uses) is free software
Firstly let me apologize for the inflammatory nature of my earlier comments. I responded to what I considered an unfair and untrue attack on KDE, and perhaps I took it personally.
I found your support of keeping the GNOME libs "library" GPL'd informative, but it has not convinced me that the libs will remain LGPL'd. Aren't your views incompatible with RMS's? Perhaps you could be persuaded to change your mind if only you could see how immoral proprietary software is? Are not intellectual properties laws (which proprietary software depend on) clouding the signals of the market, forcing it towards to creation of monopolies and away from its true point of equilibrium? Surely you would be better off contributing towards a GPL'd branch of the libraries. If only one core library developer contributes under the GPL instead of the LGPL wouldn't it place proprietary vendors in a difficult position?
Such arguments can be very convincing, and perhaps are 'right'.
More importantly I wish you the best of luck with your projects whatever they may be. I suspect our goals are similar. We shouldn't be arguing we should be coding! (and increasing our efforts to work towards common standards)
Also I have a question: if I contribute code to an LGPLed project, can someone else change to project to GPL without my consent? Honest question, I don't know the answer.
I believe the original license holder has a legal right of ownership to all works derived from their work.
This means they can _re_license an LGPL library derived from their work under any license they wish, including the GPL.
Please note relicensing doesn't invalidate earlier licenses.
You may distribute work derived from GPL'd work, (under certain conditions layed out in the GPL). Doing so enters you into a legally binding agreement with the original licenser. As long as your adhere to the conditions of the GPL you may continue to distribute derived works for as long as you wish.
Perhaps the original licenser may choose to stop publishing their work under the GPL. This wouldn't affect you as you have already entered into a legally binding agreement. I don't think you can grant the rights you have received to others though.
This is my honest opinion, but as you can see the situation is simple, I could be wrong.
I am not a lawyer and these comments should not be construed as legal advice.
Um. The FSF is *not* phasing out the LGPL. Apparently, you haven't read anything about the name changem l for the full story)
Please provide evidence of this. If you are speaking on behalf of the FSF please state your name. I find this assertion of dubious value. RMS the founder of the FSF stated on gnu.announce (see http://slashdot.org/articles/99/02/01/1730200.sht
"If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have no parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free programs. This will be a significant advantage for further free software development, and some projects will decide to make software free in order to use these libraries. University projects can easily be influenced; nowadays, as companies begin to consider making software free, even some commercial projects can be influenced in this way.
Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.
But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition."
In fact part of me believes he is right, that his assertions while costly are morally justifiable.
As RMS is the founder of the FSF I take his official statements on gnu.announce as being representative of those of the FSF. Now the GNU project is a FSF project, and I expect the imperatives laid down in such statements to be applied to all parts of the GNU project, including GNOME. (Remember this annoucement was made on gnu.annouce)
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.
Firstly you are confusing commercial with proprietary. You are free to release commercial apps with QT as long as they are open. (Ala Cygnus style).
Secondly remember GNOME stands for _GNU_ Network Object Environment. That is GNU as in FSF supported. FSF as in founded by RMS. Now RMS has clearly stated his view on proprietary software time and time again, he believes it to be immoral. In fact he has changed the LGPL license, so that instead of standing for Library Gnu Public License it stands for _Lesser_ GPL. That is, it is deprecated, and RMS (and hence FSF and hence GNOME) will attempt to phase that license out, replacing it with the GPL.
If RMS succeeds (and I think he will) it will mean that developing proprietary apps for GNOME is illegal.
Please check your facts before posting something so blatantly wrong.
Put away your flame guns and just listen for once, you Linux wanna-be software designer jerks, lets talk software development /. post intelligent comments. Many free-software programmers create excellent software. I find the tone of your comment derogatory and offensive.
. html, again contributing OpenPart components would be of infinitely more benefit than ignorant babble.
Many posters here are at
Let's talk how KDE and GNOME (which sucks, KDE rocks!)
I have been contributing to KDE for a few months now, and there is nothing I hate more than hearing "GNOME sucks". You discredit both projects with such mindless and destructive advocacy.
Let's talk "where is the visual development tools for Linux".
You may be interested in KDevelop http://www.cs.unipotsdam.de/~smeier/kdevelop/ "an easy to use IDE (Integrated Development Enviroment) for Unix/X11". Perhaps contributing to such a project would do more good than destructive criticism.
Let's talk about "how can I make a custom control?"
You may be interested in OpenParts http://developer.kde.org/openparts/html/openparts
Let's talk about... locally and remotely.
Again see the above technologies.
COM and ActiveX do make increadibly easy and powerful software development on a large scale
Incorrect, COM is not suitable for large scale deployment. Hence the development of COM+ and MTS, for more information I suggest you read "How Microsoft Transaction Server Changes the COM Programming Model" by David Chappell in the January '98 edition of Microsoft Systems Journal (a good mag) which states "it's arguable whether COM makes creating software a whole lot easier. In particular, building powerful COM servers can be daunting."
Before bashing M$ technologies, why don't you try them out first. Not all, I repeat, not all are that bad
Though it may seem suprising, despite the fact that I develop free software for *nix my day job is as a Windows Programmer. I expend considerable effort to ship products on time in an enviroment that is closed and hence hostile towards productivity.
The prettiest IDE is not substitue for the source.
KDE is free (as in no cost) for commercial use.
The applications are GPL'd. The libs are LGPL'd with the exception of QT which is QPL'd.
You could even distribute proprietary apps for KDE (though you would have to pay Troll Tech a grand).
I wouldn't say the KDE is free (as in freedom), but that isn't saying much as I wouldn't say that the GPL gives you freedom either. (As it attempts to restrict proprietary derivative distributions, privacy loophole excepted)
BTW QT 2.0 (which KDE 2.0 is based on) is fully themeable. KDE 1.1 can be made to look pretty as the kde easter egg
shows.
I've though about this too. Here are some additional enhancements.
Allow me to indicate how much I trust each moderation group by choosing a scaling factor (from 0 to 1), moderation by members within a group will be scaled by this factor.
Allow moderators to moderate articles on the front page. Allow me to set a threshold for the front page.
So being in Australia I could give a lot of trust to an Australian moderator group and hence see more articles (and comments) about the region I live in.
Good point.
Quite often I've seen intelligent debate started by a stupid comment, (and quite often I've seen the same stupid remark repeated an nausem).