Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RMS on the GPLing of Qt and More

CmdrTaco posted more than 14 years ago | from the wrapping-this-story-up dept.

GNU is Not Unix 231

infodragon sent us a Linux Today story by RMS [?] where he weighs in on the recent news about the GPLing of Qt. I'm sure that there will be a lot more about this over the week.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Re:Don't bash RMS. (2)

kmem (228603) | more than 14 years ago | (#804886)

Baloney.

How many people combined SSH (not OpenSSH) with Linux or *BSD?

How many people combined XForms with Linux or *BSD?

How many people combined QT with Linux or *BSD?

Now here is the tricky part:

How many of these people have been sued/burned/hogtied?

Re:Oooo... RMS says it's ok (1)

SquadBoy (167263) | more than 14 years ago | (#804888)

"These licenses only dictate what you can do to the code. Big deal. I've never even LOOKED at the KDE code... I have more important things to do than GUI programming." The license dictates who controls the software and who controls your machine and/or your business. This is the reason free (as in speech) software is important. Under the GPL you have control of the product if you want to send it to someone you can if you want to modify it or if you want a bug fix you can do it and or get someone to do it for you. You are not given these rights under any other license or at least not in the absolute that you are with the GPL. It is a simple matter of whe is running your life your computer and your business. You or someone else with the GPL you have the freedom to do what you want as long as it does not take the freedom away from anyone else.

Re:KDE still illegal (1)

Darkbird (173560) | more than 14 years ago | (#804893)

I think you are going over the limit by applying that KDE is illegal. You should watch what you are saying since you are a public person.
In any case I don't believe FSF and GPL, because I did not see ANY cases where GPL won legally. Until there is a precedent, GPL is nothing.
Please refrain from using Gnome until it will stop crashdump everything 5 secs. Even windows doesnt crash that much.

GPL is supposed to be free... (1)

rotor (82928) | more than 14 years ago | (#804896)

So why is it that RMS is now saying that because of a previous (possible) transgression that has now been fixed, the KDE dvelopers may have forfeited their rights to this GPL'd code? Seems to me like he's trying to secure the code in a not-so-free way.

License conflicts be damned... If someone realeases their code in an open manner, others should be able to use that code in any open manner they want!

RMS Deleriously Happy (1)

johnos (109351) | more than 14 years ago | (#804897)

From what I understand of RMS' character, I would read this article as a ringing endorsement.

My guess is that he couldn't care less if GNOME or KDE is better or more popular, he just cares about the license issue.

Can we stop these stupid and wasteful flame wars now?

Re:The KDE developer team should be applauded (2)

slim (1652) | more than 14 years ago | (#804899)

..they shouldn't be flamed for it by the 'leader' of OSS.

RMS is not "the leader of OSS". He rejects the phrase "Open Source" since he believes the term does not adequately put across the "freedom" part of Free Software.
--

Re:Don't bash RMS unless you know what you're sayi (1)

kmem (228603) | more than 14 years ago | (#804901)

If you don't understand runtime/compile-time dependencies and linking, you are really not qualified to speak on this.

Oh give me a break from the holier-and-loftier-than-thou crap.

This is a GNU pissing contest and nothing more.

Where are the GNU folks when people distribute BINARY ONLY (*GASP*) copies of their utilities linked to Solaris libs, or IRIX libs, or AIX libs.

They are just pissed because KDE/TrollTech beat them to the desktop arena.

Oh and about the BSD license.. not all *BSD distributions are based on 4.4LITE releases.

Re:KDE still getting ragged on (1)

JanW (217201) | more than 14 years ago | (#804903)

If it isn't outright insults then it is implict insults ("We hereby grant you forgiveness..") Come on! WHO ARE YOU? GOD?
No, but the holders of the copyright on a lot of gpl'ed software.

KDE does not contain GPL code copyright FSF (1)

Karma Sucks (127136) | more than 14 years ago | (#804904)

There's no GPL code copyright FSF in KDE. So what right does he have to forgive?

Heh (3)

jallen02 (124384) | more than 14 years ago | (#804907)

I do some minor development on windows doing some stuff using MFC yes its the most horrible 's h i t' I have ever used as a software developer. Okay a lot of MFC's problems have to do with the fact that Microsoft is so loosely organized their various departments turn good ideas into SHIT anyways enough of the semi-pro microsoft rant I want people to see this post after all...

I was looking into developing an app in Windows using Qt, I checked over the spec sheet looked at some Pure Qt programs and I was damn impressed with how clean the programming for it was.

I did a fair amount of GTK programming as well and I must say that the Syntax for GTK can be tedious.. its very well down for a C library but the syntax can get you some of the time, not that it bothers me but learning it was kind of annoying some late nights.

Anyhow my point is coming, I really liked Qt so much that I was fixing to write a nice app in it.. then I noticed something. Only the Unix version was free. Now they are GPL'ing Qt, my question is and yes I have read maybe I missed it but, wheres the Free version for windows?

Most people dont ever realize that Qt is totally not free in windows (as far as I know :) So that blows. Yeah sure its nice to write an app in Qt but potr it to windows??? Owch.... Ugh.. anyways I dont think they GPL'd anything but the X11 version.

Its okay I mean most of you guys wont ever notice.. but Qt is not totally free

Jeremy

Kylix (3)

Th3 D0t (204045) | more than 14 years ago | (#804908)

Will the GPLing of Qt have any effect on the development of Kylix, which uses Qt, but is itself closed source?
---

missing the point (3)

LennyDotCom (26658) | more than 14 years ago | (#804910)

why does everyone start a flame war over what is meant to be a good announcement?
Maybe people should focus more on the good FACTS of the announcement
and less on someones personal feelings
"Go get 'em, gnomes!" big deal thats called "esprit de corps"

Can't we all just get along?

Don't bother flaiming my spelling or grammer it will only be ignored
just like I ignored my english teachers ;-)

Comments. (1)

Talonius (97106) | more than 14 years ago | (#804911)

It would be a good idea for all of the authors of code in KDE (more precisely, all of the copyright holders) to make a clear statement that linking their code with Qt in the past was done with their permission, thus assuring existing KDE users that they have not forfeited distribution rights to that KDE code.

I don't understand what the KDE developers have against doing this. I don't see where this would be a liability on their part, and it would simply move their product ahead.

Also, where code was copied from other GPL-covered programs, their copyright holders need to be asked for forgiveness. To lead the way, the FSF hereby grants this forgiveness for all code that is copyright FSF.

Okay, I can see where their in trouble with that. :> I hope RMS has the ability to speak for the FSF as a whole. (Yes, I know his position, but above he indicated that only the copyright holders could grant that permission. Does the FSF retain copyright?)

But GNOME is here, and is not going to disappear. GNOME and KDE will remain two rival desktops, unless some day they can be merged in some way. Until then, the GNU Project is going to support its own team vigorously. Go get 'em, gnomes!

Someone mentioned above "this is the spirit of free software?" Yes, it is! This is COMPETITION! This is the driving force behind most people, whether they realize it or not. Without competition, products become stale. (Yes, you can use Windows here as an example if you'd like. However, look at W2K once Linux began to establish a foothold.) Anyway..

I'd like to see KDE included with more packages simply to give people the alternative, if nothing else. Remember that Linux is about choice; forcing something on someone simply because it has "always followed the license" or because it's the FSF favorite is simply absurd.

-- Talonius

P. S. For anyone who objects to me quoting from the article, most people I know who read Slashdot read the headlines and comments, not the article. I think that's gives you a very twisted view, but whatever floats their boat.

Re:GPL, UPS, FBI.... (1)

Capt. Beyond (179592) | more than 14 years ago | (#804918)

well,now. If everybody ignores a law, it is no longer a law.The GPL has NEVER been held up in a court of law, so no one really knows if it IS legal anyway.

Re:Rather poor statement (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#804924)

You missed the point almost entirely.

Take a KDE source file:

kdebase-1.1.2/kcontrol/kpanel/disknav.cpp

You'll read (for instance):

* Copyright (C) 1998 Pietro Iglio (iglio@fub.it)

Take a Gnome source file:

You'll read:

(C) 1997 The Free Software Foundation

This is a major difference. It enable RMS to say things like:

"To lead the way, the FSF hereby grants this forgiveness for all code that is copyright FSF."

Effectively, GNOME is a FSF project, not simply a GPL'ed project. The least that GNOME coders expect is that RMS stand behind them. This is what I expect too. And you may even understand that a FSF endorsed project, with its centralised copyright, have much better protection than a non FSF endorsed one. In this specific case, RMS have been able to give a huge push to the pityfull licensing situation of KDE. This man put its money where is mouth here, and deserve much respect also for this.
Cheers,

--fred

Yeah, well . . . (2)

alhaz (11039) | more than 14 years ago | (#804925)

The way i see it, this will probably really only take the gloves off in the KDE vs Gnome battles.

I mean, these folks bicker constantly. Do you honestly thing that having compatible licenses will make everything better? Heck, I half expect to see a statement from debian to the effect of "We're still not going to package your desktop, because we just don't like you, Nyah!"

Personally, I'm riding the fence on this one. Hate the gnome panel, hate KDE's separate panel and taskbar, hate the look & feel of QT apps anyhow. I haven't seen a desktop environment since OS/2's Workplace Shell with StarDock's Object Desktop addon that i really liked, so I'm using IceWM with no file manager and no silly icons all over the screen. (For the record, Ice's toolbar looks like Lotus SmartCenter, and Win9x looks like SmartCenter)

Re:Stallman is a self-aggrandizing, arrogant cock (1)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 14 years ago | (#804926)

Arrogant or no, at least he comes out and says what he believs, and doesn't hide behind some anonymous veil.

I won't even concern myself to respond to the other useless bits of flamebait in your post.

Rather poor statement (5)

harmonica (29841) | more than 14 years ago | (#804927)

But GNOME is here, and is not going to disappear. GNOME and KDE will remain two rival desktops, unless some day they can be merged in some way. Until then, the GNU Project is going to support its own team vigorously. Go get 'em, gnomes!

That's supposed to be the spirit of free software? Our (== FSF) project must win? What about freedom of choice? Or 'may the best product win'? Yes, he didn't say that KDE has no right to live. But KDE is a very high quality piece of free software, and once two competing products are released under 'his' GPL, Stallman should really talk about them on the basis of their technical merits. Or not talk about them at all, given his position in the world of free software and the fact that the political issues around KDE are now resolved.

Re:Don't bash RMS unless you know what you're sayi (1)

Mekanix (127309) | more than 14 years ago | (#804928)

This have me puzzled as well.

But perhaps it's to hard to flame something as long as you don't have an politically correct GPL licenced alternative ready?

Damn, I'm starting to dislike GPL and it's fanatic followers more and more each day.

Bjarne

Re:Forgiveness? (4)

teraflop user (58792) | more than 14 years ago | (#804929)

No, its not all resolved. Any software created by linking a `GPL-without-special-implied-permission' component with a QT2.2 library remains unlicensed. An example of such code is the wv (formerly mswordview) code used in the Kword-MSword input filter. Such software has no legal license and therefore cannot be distributed.

By granting retrospective permission, the FSF has rendered all such software which uses FSF-copyright code legal. Other copyright holders may or may not chose to follow suit.

Of course there is now no barrier to futuer incorporation of GPL code. Gimp/QT (KIMP) is suddenly back on the cards.

The prospect of merging some of the better features also looks more promising these days, since both projects seem to be de-integrating some of their components. For example, gdk-pixbuf can now be built without GTK, DCOP objects are not dependent on QT. Maybe Gnome will follow KDE and replace esd with aRTs.

well, it is about time! (3)

fence (70444) | more than 14 years ago | (#804930)

RMS on the GPLing of Qt and More

I would have thought that `more` would have been placed under the GPL long ago...
---
Interested in the Colorado Lottery?

Re:Forgiveness? (2)

teraflop user (58792) | more than 14 years ago | (#804931)

QT2.2 should of course have read QT<2.2.

Forgot the htmlization, sorry.

Co-operation of Gnome and KDE... (1)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | more than 14 years ago | (#804932)

At the moment Gnome and KDE are 'rivals' !

Which is a bloody shame because I like (and use) them both ...but...

If both sides would co-operate and make a *serious* attempt to enable both systems to work with each other - it would *unify* the community and hopefully further progress technological advantage.

Now that Qt will now be GPLed there is nothing to stop someone from forming a project whose sole purpose is to make this happen (which both sides are unwilling to do) now that the licensing restriction has ended.

Now that would be something worthwhile to contribute to the community!

Re:Kylix (1)

Dandy (2564) | more than 14 years ago | (#804943)

Qt will be triple-licenced under either the GPL or the QPL or the commercial-type license available from Trolltech, at the option of the user. Authors of non-free software will still be able to use Qt under the terms of the QPL if they wish. This scheme was well thought-out. Nobody's getting left out in the cold.

What is all this GPL code that KDE uses? (1)

baywulf (214371) | more than 14 years ago | (#804946)

Can someone enumerate a list of the code from which KDE borrows GPL code? I see people constantly accusing them of this but don't go into specifics...

Re:KDE Free QT Foundation (1)

Kenelson (4445) | more than 14 years ago | (#804950)

If a piece of code is licensed under both GPL and BSD/woa than the user can choose the license they want to use. Most people would choose the freer (to the user) BSD license.

What will get really interesting is what happens when people submit GPL licensed code to the GPL licensed project? The result is the GPL one would fork if the author didn't give permision to use that in the current non-free edition. Thus if TrollTech does dry up, the GPL one cannot revert to BSD, but the entirely TrollTech copyrighted one can.

--Karl

Re:Oooo... RMS says it's ok (2)

mikpos (2397) | more than 14 years ago | (#804951)

Then don't read the story. Probably 90% of the people using KDE didn't really care about the licence issue. You might say that they're "not interested" in this story. For the other 10%, they were (maybe only as a spectator) involved in the issue and thus would be "interested" in the aftermath. I'm just not following. Just because a story is posted on Slashdot, it does not mean that you have an obligation to post a comment about it. I don't write a letter to the editor of the newspaper every day and say "why would you have a sports section if I don't find it interesting?! I don't care what the Toronto Maple Leafs are doing!"

Re:Kylix (1)

Communomancer (8024) | more than 14 years ago | (#804952)

Inprise has most likely purchased a "commercial license" of QT, whereby Troll Tech explicitly gives them permission to write closed-source QT apps. Since the Trolls are the copyright holders of QT, they can dually license their software as they see fit, so there is no impropriety here.

Re:Kylix (1)

ocelotbob (173602) | more than 14 years ago | (#804953)

Probably not. You read the announcement on trolltech's page (sorry, too lazy to look it up), you find that there are now a few different licenses for the Qt library. There's the GPL, there's the QPL, and their traditional commercial license.

GPL, UPS, FBI.... (1)

photozz (168291) | more than 14 years ago | (#804954)

"The design of KDE was based on a fundamental mistake: use of the Qt library, which at the time was non-free software.

How will/has this hit oficial packaged releases like Mandrake, RedHat ect.. As a relatively new Linux user ('bout a year) I never heard about this. The whole GPL Licence issue is somewhat hazy to those of us on the "outside" of the comunity.

Death to MOC! (1)

DGolden (17848) | more than 14 years ago | (#804955)

Now that Qt is GPL, and templates are working in gcc, there is an excellent chance that MOC will go the way of the dinosaur...

Re:Rival desktops? (2)

banky (9941) | more than 14 years ago | (#804956)

I doubt the maintainers of, say,
Pine and Mutt see themselves as rivals. They are just merrily going about their business and scratching their own itch.

I would argue that Pine and mutt, for instance, are scratching a single itch: an email program. KDE and GNOME comprise dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of individual programs, not to mention the core components (themselves programs). There's dozen of itches, and each team must do all the same work over, in a sense. This kinda thing bothers RMS (ever read the Xemacs schism?), apparently.

RMS is the Way, the Truth, and the...wait a minute (4)

fridgepimp (136338) | more than 14 years ago | (#804957)

Also, where code was copied from other GPL-covered programs, their copyright holders need to be asked for forgiveness. To lead the way, the FSF hereby grants this forgiveness for all code that is copyright FSF.

Oh what a wicked generation of thieves and harlots. Repent now, and be saved. Accept the One True Way(tm).

Blessed are they who walk among the gnomes, for they will be Free(tm).

Blessed are those change their licenses, for they will be forgiven.

Blessed are those who assign copyright to the FSF, for they will inherit the Kingdom of GNU(tm).

If you truly be followers of RMS, you must daily take up your soapbox and follow him.

--1 Perenthians 2:14-20

(this is clearly a troll...i couldn't resist)

Re:Kylix (1)

Capt. Beyond (179592) | more than 14 years ago | (#804958)

No, TrollTech released QT under two licenses- GPL or QPL, you have a choice. Borland probaby paid for the license, and will most likely use the QPL. Also, you can release proprietary code with GPL code in it, as long as you make available the changes to the GPL's code.

Re:Forgiveness? (2)

Carl (12719) | more than 14 years ago | (#804959)

If you follow the letter of the GPL no. Clause 4 says:
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
So if you keep using the same copy of that code later (even if you then comply with the GPL rules) you may not distribute that copy. But you could ofcourse just ask (get from ftp a web site, etc.) a new fresh copy which does grant you those permission again :)

Re:Rather poor statement (1)

uberchicken (121048) | more than 14 years ago | (#804960)

You miss the point. FSF is about freedom, and not at the expense of competition. Why complain? Users usually benefit from a little rivalry.

Re:Rival desktops? (1)

_Lint_ (30522) | more than 14 years ago | (#804969)

By "Merged", I don't think he meant actually making the two projects into one.
Some types of merging could be:
1) Writing apps that supported GNOME *and* KDE.
2) Drag 'n Drop support between KDE and GNOME apps.

In other words, you would still have two seperate desktop environments, but each could support features of the other.

Re:Kylix (1)

Pope Slackman (13727) | more than 14 years ago | (#804984)

According to the article, TrollTech says you can choose either the GPL or the QPL, so I'd imagine this won't affect them, as they can continue using the older license...

--K
---

Don't bash RMS unless you know what you're saying (4)

MenTaLguY (5483) | more than 14 years ago | (#804985)

How many people combined SSH (not OpenSSH) with Linux or *BSD?

Nobody, at least not in contravention of the licenses. Mere agregation is not the same thing as linking (the GPL does make an explicit distinction).

The same applies to the rest of your examples. The licensing problems came in when GPLed code (e.g. KOffice) was linked to Qt at compile time and the binaries distributed.

If you don't understand runtime/compile-time dependencies and linking, you are really not qualified to speak on this.

(moreover, your BSD example is bogus; the BSD license essentially lets you do whatever you want -- it'd be entirely legal to link a BSD-licenced app with Qt)

The KDE developer team should be applauded (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#804986)

I highly doubt Troll Tech would have GPLed Qt without the existance of KDE and the pressure it put on the company to open source their code. I think the developer team should be congratulated for helping further the OSS movement...they shouldn't be flamed for it by the 'leader' of OSS.

Why is everyone 'dissing' RMS ? (1)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | more than 14 years ago | (#804987)

What is the problem ?

He is defending *your* right 'to choose' and your right of 'freedom of speech'.

E.g:
Your right to choose what OS and software to run and not be 'forced' to use a particular system...

The freedom to express yourself via speech, through programming code and the right to create something without being slapt with patent infringement...

I do not agree with everything RMS says but I do understand and have *a great deal of respect* for someone who stands up for their rights and trys to do something rather that sitting on your arse and complaining!

You have to admit he has made a considerable contribution to the community (which without him may not have the political clout it has today).

He may have some 'questionable' beliefs but to dismiss him so easily is truly criminal.

Would Mr.Stallman like to complete . . . (1)

Godwin O'Hitler (205945) | more than 14 years ago | (#804988)

. . . his statement and tell us when he expects GNOME to go beta?

Re:Rather poor statement (1)

ColdGrits (204506) | more than 14 years ago | (#804989)

I hate to say it, but "me too"- I agree with every word you just wrote ovapositor.

It's just a shame that more people don't think for themselvesinstead of waiting to be told what to think :(

Re:Heh (1)

gattaca (27954) | more than 14 years ago | (#804990)

Most people dont ever realize that Qt is totally not free in windows (as far as I know :) Isn't this a good thing for free software - you can write exactly the same app, and it's free in Linux and costs under Windows?

RMS has earned the right to be particular (4)

jonabbey (2498) | more than 14 years ago | (#804991)

Sure, RMS' missive on the great Qt relicensing could be taken as arrogant, but I don't believe it is. RMS has worked for 16 years to produce the foundations of modern free UNIX, and all of that work rests on the foundation of the GNU General Public License. If free software as he has defined it and worked for is going to thrive, the GPL has got to mean what it says. Any erosion or confusion by subtle redefinition or violation of the terms of the GPL put the whole thing at risk, in my opinion. Would folks here have preferred that the FSF sued the KDE developers for the alleged GPL violations?

Richard has always been stubborn and exacting in his quest for a viable free software substrate for computing, this should come as no surprise to anyone. That stubbornness has gotten the job done to an astonishing degree. Whichever desktop you choose, you now have the power and the right to hack on its internals, to make modifications, and to distribute them without paying a dime to anyone, so long as you grant others the same rights. That's a big win for all of us, and it's an especially big win for the current and prospective KDE community and users. Richard felt that a point needed to be made on this happy occasion to reinforce the importance and meaning of the GPL, and I see his logic. If we act as if the GPL 'just sorta' constrains behavior with GPL'ed resources, then we 'just sorta' have the guarantees that the GPL is supposed to convey and promote.

Flaming RMS (5)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 14 years ago | (#804992)

Why is it that everyone always insists on flaming everything RMS says? RMS has the balls to do what few people in this world do, to stand up for his ideals and make a statement. Sure, he does evangelize, and sure, he does get melodramatic. But isn't that the point? When you believe wholeheartedly in something, and have dedicated your entire life to those beliefs, shouldn't things be dramatic to you? Shouldn't you be proud of standing up for something you believe in? RMS doesn't hold back because he's scared people will hate him or think him a fool, he states his views with pride and doen't pretend to fit in with the status quo. I believe our modern world of political correctness, plaster smiles, and double dealing could benefit from some upfront honesty and true beliefs. Look for a second what RMS is actually trying to accomplish people: A community of sharing and giving. Instead of judging everything he says, we should all respect the man for doing what so few of us have had the nerve to do: for standin up, shouting out his beliefs, then actually spending a good deal of his life WORKING to make those beliefs a REALITY. Whether you like him or not, and whether you believe his ideals or not, show the man the respect he deserves for standing up for what he cares about. I for one know I have never had the stones to go as far as he has for his beliefs.

KDE Free QT Foundation (1)

Threed (886) | more than 14 years ago | (#804993)

Everyone's patting Troll Tech on the back for GPLing QT instead of LGPLing it. It was indeed a brilliant move that exposes QT to the hordes of KDE developers while protecting their revenue by charging for commercial development.

Now, what happens to the commercial developers who use QT if Troll Tech goes under? They get to keep the last version of QT that they purchased, and that's it. They lose the ability to use the latest and greatest free (speech) QT for their closed apps.

The KDE Free QT Foundation will still have the right to release QT under the BSD License (I hope without the advertisement clause). I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around the licensing issues there: GPL and BSD versions of the same code... What happens there? Anyone?

The real Threed's /. ID is lower than the real Bruce Perens'.

--Threed

Go Get 'Em Gnomes (3)

maroberts (15852) | more than 14 years ago | (#804994)

To use a famous phrase 'He would say that, wouldn't he'.

Having GNOME and KDE as competitors has been good for Linux (*NOT* GNU/Linux as RMS fatuously keeps saying), despite the flamewars that have consumed thousands of hours which would have been better spent in developing the desktops. The cross fertilisation of ideas and programs has meant that both desktops have benefited.

The benefits of programming in C++ (stricter interfaces) seem to have resulted in KDE being more stable, whilst OTOH the fact that more people understand C has meant that GNOME has perhaps come faster quicker.

Re:Rather poor statement (2)

VP (32928) | more than 14 years ago | (#804995)

That's supposed to be the spirit of free software? Our (== FSF) project must win? What about freedom of choice?

You seem to be reading too much into the Go get 'em, gnomes! statement. I don't see it as implying that one project will "win". What would this mean in the first place? Has vi won? Has emacs won? Has Xemacs won?

The important thing to remember is that the two projects have different approaches to modularity and desktop integration. By being able to compete on equal footing, the outcome will be very benefficial for the end user, because now only the technical side will matter. I am certain that pieceful co-existance of the two desktops is entirely possible, and we'll see it very soon. The most interesting times for this rivalry are yet to come!

Retroactive permission (offtopic -1) (1)

Famous (210304) | more than 14 years ago | (#804996)

I think the technique of retroactively granting someone a special license should be used more often. You know how lawyers are always jumping up and down on people about trademarks because of "dilution" rules, even to the extent of pissing off supporters/fans of their product? Instead of sending out "cease and desist" notices, they should send out notices of permission, granting their supporters/fans the limited right to use their logos, etc. This way their trademark is not diluted ("they had permission, your honour") and the fans aren't peeved -- in fact they are probably chuffed.

Getting back on topic, if someone unintentionally violates your copyright license but you happen to like what they've done because it's in the right spirit of things, then grant them a special permission.

Re: (1)

BigStink (99218) | more than 14 years ago | (#804997)

He asks for forgiveness. Is he Jesus ?

Look at this photo [stallman.org] and judge for yourself.

Re:Rather poor statement (2)

stille (213453) | more than 14 years ago | (#804998)

Here is the thing. GNOME started to make a free (speech) alternative to KDE/Qt. If Trolltech had instantly changed the license to GPL I would guess that GNOME would have been canceled.

Since then, GNOME has grown to a huge thing. RMS will not tell all the users to switch to KDE and all the developers to stop or switch. The developers want to continue, so they will continue.

The "go get 'em" doesn't mean he wants to crush KDE. He has already stated that now KDE/Qt can be seen as a contribution and not a threat. He just cheers the team he sympathizes the most. Maybe because even if they are free now, they have generaly shown that they don't think freedom is as valuable as RMS/FSF does.

Re:Masterful Intransigence (3)

Enahs (1606) | more than 14 years ago | (#804999)

/*
He couldn't quite manage to argue that the QPL was non-free, but he did manage to argue that it was
incompatible with the GPL (I doubt this claim would stand up in court)

See this site on this very topic.
*/

I did.

And guess what? There's just a claim that the license is incompatible, along with a disclaimer that can be added to the COPYING file that somehow magically makes it all compatible.

The real issue: an ambiguous reading of the GPL that claims that dynamic linking is a derivative work. It's a dubious claim, and one that most certainly wouldn't win in a court of law (although IANAL) without a lot of legal posturing. That Troll Tech caved in is proof that they were merely tired of hearing the whining. I mean, come on, they offered the toolkit free for free (as in beer AND speech) software because they benefitted from the existence of free software. As I recall, their original dev platform was a Linux box. :^)

In short, a simple claim of incompatibility isn't a real claim at all--it's just bullshit in the disguise of a real claim. RMS just used his position of Saint IGNUcius (which is the most offensive thing he's ever done, IMHO) to dictate what is and what is not incompatible.

Bastard.

Re:Comments. (1)

VP (32928) | more than 14 years ago | (#805023)

Okay, I can see where their in trouble with that. :> I hope RMS has the ability to speak for the FSF as a whole. (Yes, I know his position, but above he indicated that only the copyright holders could grant that permission. Does the FSF retain copyright?)

Yes and yes - the FSF is the copyright holder of most (if not all) of the GNU code, and RMS can speak for the FSF.

Re:Masterful Intransigence (4)

nd (20186) | more than 14 years ago | (#805024)

Perhaps you're forgetting that RMS wrote the GPL?

He couldn't quite manage to argue that the QPL was non-free, but he did manage to argue that it was incompatible with the GPL (I doubt this claim would stand up in court)

See this site [fsf.org] on this very topic.

Now he takes the psoition that, even when the QPL is replaced by the GPL, the fact that you ever tried to link against the QPL irrevocably forfeits your rights to release the software under the GPL.

No, he's saying that they couldn't borrow code from other GPL applications without explicit permission into KDE (which depends on a incompatible license).

He knows what he's talking about.

Re:Kylix (2)

LetterRip (30937) | more than 14 years ago | (#805025)

"Also, you can release proprietary code with GPL code in it, as long as you make available the changes to the GPL's code. "

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. If you are using GPLed code in a product, then the whole of the code must be released under the GPL if you choose to distribute it. Hence the 'viral' nature of the GPL. You may be thinking of the LGPL (Lesser GPL, previously Library GPL), in which you can link to the LGPL code with proprietary/closed source software, but must make availble the changes you made to the LGPL source code.

LetterRip
Tom M.
fstmm@yahoo.com

Re:Heh (2)

Emil Brink (69213) | more than 14 years ago | (#805026)

I wondered about this, too, when the announcement of QT/Unix going GPL was made. What happens if someone takes that code, and ports it to Windows? For "true" GPL code, that would be perfectly alright, but here it "feels" as if Trolltech don't want it to happen, or something. OK, I confess: I haven't checked out the exact licensing, or anything, but if it says "GPL", then surely it really is GPL, and not "GPL-no-windows-porting-allowed"? Software licensing these days sure is complex...

Re:Rather poor statement (3)

ovapositor (79434) | more than 14 years ago | (#805027)

I could care less what RMS says on this topic. He does not do my thinking for me. He shouldn't do your thinking for you! Celebrities in general continually irritate me with their uninteresting drivel.

PDF on the 411 about DECSS, with comments by THJ (2)

krystal_blade (188089) | more than 14 years ago | (#805028)

THJ commented today on the state of DECSS, which is currently AWOL. "Things are really FUBAR," he said, "We had to go BTDB, and RTFM last night trying to track this UA down."

This is, of course, in response to the PDB who Hacked the website of HID INC. One of the hackers was KIA, after getting hit with the ISP's SBS, which they purchased from ISS.

"This is a RM", THJ continued, "Those DF's that did this had no idea of how hard it is to reload RPM's onto that IBM box, and that's exactly what we had to do to FTFM. Fortunately, we found a patch that not only fixes the potential problem, and ups the MTBF."

TRANSLATION

THJ Thomas Hartley Jones, A fake person

DECSS Don't be stupid

AWOL Absent Without Leave

FUBAR F****D Up Beyond All Recognition

BTDB Back To Drawing Board

RTFM Read The F***ing Manual

UA Unidentified Assailent

PDB Poor, Dumb Bastard

HID INC Home Internet Delivery, Inc.

KIA Killed In Action

ISP's Internet Service Provider

SBS Security Bagging System

ISS Internet Security Systems

RM Real Mess

DF Dumb F***s

RPM Don't be an idiot

IBM :)

FTFM Fix The F***ing Machines

MTBF Mean Time between Failure

AAAARGGGHHHH!!!! IHA. (I HATE ACRONYMS)

krystal_blade

Re:Kylix (2)

Foogle (35117) | more than 14 years ago | (#805029)

This is true. The original poster was wrong in assuming that Borland would be using any GPL'ed code at all. Trolltech duel-licenses their Qt libraries, under both a commercial license and the GPL (previously the QPL). Borland does not have to release Kylix under the GPL because they are not using any GPL'ed software to begin with... They've paid for the commercial version.

Alternatively, the may have an entirely seperate license from Trolltech that we know nothing about. Regardless, you can be sure that they are not under any obligation to release Kylix under the GPL.

-----------

"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

Re:Oooo... RMS says it's ok (2)

redhog (15207) | more than 14 years ago | (#805030)

The attitude you seems to have is exactly the one that makes KDE not a good solution, even though it is free, if the KDE developers have it. But I suppose they have a bit saner attitudes than your.

Free software is not to be free to provide you with gratis software, but to allow us, that is, the programmers, to hack on what we want. We don't actually care about how much you are to spend on it, just about our ability to put the features we like into it.

Note, the above paragraph IS ranting. It is trolling. But it is important - the users-only people are not the only people that counts.

As a Gtk-programmer, I am happy that Qt is GPLed, since that means that we now have two good desktops, and a hell lot of good aps, which can be linked with each other, benefit from each other and minimize recreation of the same code over and over again.

I whish you all KDE developers good luck and that you will have a fun time using GNOME-program-code in your aps and having code from your apps used by GNOME-hackers!

Re:RMS has a flawed argument (3)

DJerman (12424) | more than 14 years ago | (#805031)

It seems to me that a fundamental flaw of Mr. Stallman's open source philosophy is that it implies that adherance to his particular license is of more importance than the overal quality and value of a product. Most sources agree that KDE is the superior choice of Linux desktop, yet according to open source proponents GNOME is the better choice simply because it is licensed under the GNU Public License.

It seems to me that your client thinks that I should abide by their license agrement, no? Mr. Stallman believes that certain principles are important, I grant you. He has attempted to embody those principles in his license, also granted. But having done so, others who choose to use the code distributed with that license are bound to abide by it, therefore I believe Mr. Stallman's points about the questionable legality of KDE (in the past) are quite valid.

Let me tell you, the corporate world would rather use the product that provides less function than the one that will get their computers confiscated :-).

But I think you have also fallen into the reporter's trap of reviewing others' information rather than forming your own opinion. Not that you wouldn't still decide what you've decided, but your "Most sources" comment leads me to wonder if the more vocal crowd isn't shaping your report. If you were to do a review right now, you might find that Gnome 1.2 and the current version of KDE offer much the same "quality" with respect to stability and usability, and that the reputation for poor quality of Gnome stems from early adopters' problems with code that was released a little before its time (I'm sure your client never does that :-). I'd urge you to take the plunge and try the "open source" software you're reporting on, rather than rely on others' potentially dated work.

Specifically on Gnome vs KDE:

I'm a Gnome person, but not a programmer for either camp. I see a more robust design in Gnome for componentized applications and complexity management, but I also recognize that the KDE crew has pulled their product up to a similar level, just as the Gnomers have got their bugs under control. I still prefer Gnome because it seems more designed than hacked, and seems (IMHO) to have the better design philosophy but really, by now the differences between the two efforts have become much smaller than they were a year ago.

Back to your point:

The conflict between the ivory tower and the real world is addressed by open source software. Often, however, the ivory tower produces the longer-lasting results. Unix was developed there, and Linux is still held to high standards by its authors (perhaps there's disagreement about how high, but they're there). The difference that open source offers is that if the software doesn't meet the real world needs, you can reshape it. The benefit of the long development cycle adhering to the ivory-tower principles is that you don't have to release service packs as often :-). The corporate world would like to have quality software, but they've shown time and again that something that mostly works today is preferred to something that will work correctly tomorrow. Witness Word vs Wordperfect, Windows NT vs OS/2 (vs a user-friendly unix), etc...

The success of the open-source movement does not depend on businesses adopting it. It's not "in the market" except in the sense that movement is in the bazzar. Nobody needs to buy it for it to succeed. The success of open-source software depends on people taking pride in their work and in doing it right, and deriving their sense of worth from that. That the products are useful and desirable flows from the success of craftsmanship, not the other way around.

Re:Why is everyone 'dissing' RMS ? (1)

Enahs (1606) | more than 14 years ago | (#805032)

>What is the problem ?

> He is defending *your* right 'to choose' and your right of 'freedom of speech'.

*My* problem with some of RMSs statements is that he's forgiving KDE and Troll Tech for what was, in fact, a problem with a badly-worded (and much in need of rewording) section of the the GPL.

New acronym required (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 14 years ago | (#805033)

GNL GNU's Not Linux!

(Well I thought it was funny)

Re:Comments. (1)

johnnyb (4816) | more than 14 years ago | (#805034)

The FSF (which is headed by RMS) has copyright to many, many GPL projects. Therefore, RMS is authorized to grant forgiveness. Most projects listed on the GNU software page have the whole copyright of them assigned to the FSF. They don't automatically hold the copyright. Instead, they have forms that you fill out to grant the FSF copyright (filling out these forms is a requirement to participate in some of the projects). These forms give the FSF the ability to defend the GPL in court. The transfer of copyright gives a legal basis for _someone_ owning the copyright (if you didn't do a legal transfer, there would be no record of copyright ownership), and also allow the FSF to sue companies who violate the copyright of GPL products.

Re:KDE still getting ragged on (2)

stille (213453) | more than 14 years ago | (#805035)

("We hereby grant you forgiveness..") Come on! WHO ARE YOU? GOD?


The forgiveness is a strictly legal thing. Not a personal forgiveness to you as a persson.

Re:Masterful Intransigence (2)

Chalst (57653) | more than 14 years ago | (#805036)

KDE has always been GPL. The idea that there could be
source-to-source conflict between KDE and GPL code sounds to me to
turn on legal subtleties that I doubt RMS, pace his status as
co-author of the GPL, is at all qualified to judge.

What really irritates me is that RMS can never resist the urge to
make the worst of some legal hairsplitting. If he just sounded a note
of caution, I would be happy, but he has to talk in terms of KDE
developers forfeiting their rights to develop the code on which they
are working.

Pressure (2)

hey! (33014) | more than 14 years ago | (#805037)

I'd argue that there's never pressure to open source code -- at least in the normal sense of the phrase. There's only unique business opportunities that open source provides.

Abandonware is a typical example. This is often spoken of here derogatively, but I think it is a great opportunity for a company to do right by the people who bought its products and to possibly position itself to benefit in the future from an otherwise moribund product.

The business proposition for Trolltech is much more aggressive. They can ride the rising tide of open source, creating a pool of experienced Qt developers and resources that will be available for closed source development. It encourages young programmers to develop with it. Without the open source community, QT would have no future against MFC on Win32, which with the MS imprimatur steamrollers all closed source Win32 competitors, whether or not they are technically superior.

Thank you, RMS (1)

Enahs (1606) | more than 14 years ago | (#805038)

Thank you for forgiving Troll Tech and KDE for committing the sin of violating an ambiguity in the GPL.

Twice as much trouble ? (4)

mirko (198274) | more than 14 years ago | (#805054)

GNOME and KDE will remain two rival desktops, unless some day they can be merged in some way
Hmmmmm.... Does this mean we might encounter the same problems as with glibc and libstc ?
I'd have prefered if RMS had not evoked some merge but rather an increased freedom of choice.
I can therefore understand that RMS doesn't plan to throw out the Gnome Project once KDE has become Free.
This would also be a pity so please, let them co-exist instead of yugoslavi-ing them into a unique internally conflicting entity.

--

Don't bash RMS. (4)

shaka (13165) | more than 14 years ago | (#805055)

A lot of you /.-ers are gonna start bashing RMS now, for him being so anal about things like this.
I think that's pretty naïve.
RMS always backs his arguments with thoroughly gone trough scenarios of how app
arently small things might cause big effects in the future, like using a partly
non-free system or calling GNU/Linux "Linux".
It's easy to bash him for that, but he might actually be right and I think you
can't be too catious.

Oooo... RMS says it's ok (3)

EricWright (16803) | more than 14 years ago | (#805057)

Who is this root-mean-square guy and why should I care ;o}

So, am I supposed to be jumping up and down with joy now that RMS says it's ok to like/use KDE? I've been using KDE since version 1.0. I could care less what the license was. I imagine many people who merely use the software care don't care either. These licenses only dictate what you can do to the code. Big deal. I've never even LOOKED at the KDE code... I have more important things to do than GUI programming.

Eric

Well actually... (1)

Pope Slackman (13727) | more than 14 years ago | (#805063)

>Come on! WHO ARE YOU? GOD?

Saint IGNUcius. [stallman.org]

-K
---

Thnx RMS for your precious forgiveness (1)

Vicegrip (82853) | more than 14 years ago | (#805064)

I'm sure the qt developers will now sleep much better at night knowing you now approve their monumental effort.

I'm just thankful the Troll folks were able to overlook such patronizing politics and do something that will finally and forever put to bed all the bitching.

Licenses, Licensii, whatever (1)

Ortado (89074) | more than 14 years ago | (#805065)

I absolutly hate them. I program for a small company (okay, i am the company) and deal with free software on a daily basis. When i made that desision to move to free software, i was inevidetably forced choose a license. Yea, i looked over the GPL, and read the first half of it until i got so confused, i couldn't tell what i could or could not do. So i started just following Slashdot, and eventually came to a psudo understanding of the GPL and all it's resrictions. I finnally got to the point where i said that i was not going to use the GPL in any of my software that i don't have to. Instead i looked at the OSI approved licenses and saw libpng and bsd, and said, "Hey, i like that." So i took from the two the parts I liked and and wrote my license that i use for DWin and Draak (The Orginal Atrodo(s) Company [sourceforge.net] ) I did this because license don't matter to me. All i want is acknowledgement that i do write code. What ever other people do with it, i don't care, because my experience was always that people don't like my programs. But obviously i am wrong because people are downloading DWin, and visting my site fairly regularly.

Now what's my point? Well i almost forgot it too, but the fact is that license doesn't matter to me, as long as i can program what i want. RMS gets to me in this respect, saying that anything but GPL is the end of free software. But look at BSD. They have a license that uses something other then GPL and they are huge success. I might even swich my linux box over to a bsd box because i never knew how huge of a cult following they have until i started to look. And the best part is that they spend more time coding then debating about what license to use for software x and is it compatable with software y. One more RMS articale like this saying he is always right, and i probably will install a BSD.

Re:GPL, UPS, FBI.... (1)

perle (5354) | more than 14 years ago | (#805066)

Everyone but Debian have conveniently ignored that
it was illegal for them to distribute KDE.

Re:Thnx RMS for your precious forgiveness (1)

johnnyb (4816) | more than 14 years ago | (#805067)

Actually, RMS wasn't saying _anything_ negative about QT or TrollTech. Everything about them was entirely positive and thankful. He only said negative things about KDE, which he was well within his right, because KDE has been using GNU code illegally (not just their own GPL code, but the FSF's as well).

the relative status of licenses (1)

gattaca (27954) | more than 14 years ago | (#805068)

It is interesting how the open source community gets so het up about the legal status of software licenses and copyright. It seems to me that this eagerness to uphold the law, and to make damn sure that everything is above board suddenly stops as soon as mp3s raise their ugly head.

Re:Don't bash RMS. (2)

wik (10258) | more than 14 years ago | (#805069)

It's hard not to bash the guy who "bashed" us:

Quoted from bash-2.04/doc/bashref.info

This is Edition 2.4, last updated 14 March 2000, of `The GNU Bash Reference Manual', for `Bash', Version 2.04.

Copyright (C) 1991-1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

So, before you start shelling out bad arguments, please remember that it's Posix 1003.2-compliant code that you're bashing.

bidirectional nonsense (1)

pohl (872) | more than 14 years ago | (#805070)

It seems that the KDE developers, no matter what they do, no matter what good intentions they hold, always gets bashed by the GNU/GNOME/RMS camp.

It may seem that way to you, but the nonsense is bidirectional. Many people have their favorite project, and continue to push their agenda with clumsy, ill-informed irrelevancies. Just last night there two completely off-topic slashdot posts buried within the HUGO awards article [1] [slashdot.org] [2] [slashdot.org] that serve as a recent example of stupidity aimed the other direction.

Re:Don't bash RMS. (2)

Alternity (16492) | more than 14 years ago | (#805071)

I always thought it kinda childish to insist that much about calling Linux "GNU\Linux".
We all know it's GNU\Linux just as we all know it's MS Windows, but when I just say Windows nobody thinks I'm talking about anything else but MS Windows so why should it be different about Linux? Of course the "official" name mght be GNU\Linux and I am fine with that... but can't we just leave that implicit in our conversations?

Re:Heh (1)

jallen02 (124384) | more than 14 years ago | (#805072)



It is not that your app would cost anything in windows it is just you have to pay for Qt to get your application to compile in Windows.

Qt is kind of talking from the side of its mouth when it says Free.

Go check out their site you will have a hard time finding Windows, and Free associated with each other.

Jeremy

Re:PDF on the 411 about DECSS, with comments by TH (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 14 years ago | (#805073)

Remember, there are only 17,576 TLAs (46656 if you include numbers).

Forgiveness? (1)

E1ven (50485) | more than 14 years ago | (#805078)

RMS, and the FSF grant the KDE/Qt team "forgiveness" for any past using of GPL code from the FSF programs. Is this necessary?
Isn't it just promising not to yell and scream about something that doesn't matter anymore?

If I link with Qt, but then move to the GPL, why would I have a problem? Isn't everything resolved at that point?

Re:Rather poor statement (1)

SquadBoy (167263) | more than 14 years ago | (#805080)

OK I'll bite RMS like Gnome better considers it a project that he works on. There are many many apps released under the GPL clearly one person can not like them all and should not have to take a silly position of being "fair" RMS likes Gnome better I do too. Will the GNU project support things it thinks of as being it's projects yes yes they will. Now that the legal status of KDE is clear now the comparison between Gnome and KDE will be better. I think this can only be a good thing.

I know exactly what he said... (5)

dizee (143832) | more than 14 years ago | (#805081)

"This is an outrage! It should be called GNU/Qt!"

"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."

Re:Rather poor statement (4)

shaka (13165) | more than 14 years ago | (#805084)

A statement like go get 'em, gnomes! is competition, so you should be happy.
You can argue about his "position in the world of free software", but he probably just feels for GNOME, cause that's more "his" project than KDE.

Rival desktops? (2)

FattMattP (86246) | more than 14 years ago | (#805085)

But GNOME is here, and is not going to disappear. GNOME and KDE will remain two rival desktops, unless some day they can be merged in some way.
Although I respect RMS a lot, I don't understand how he could say this with a straight face. I thought that one of the many points of free software is choice. There is no reason that KDE and Gnome need to either be rivals or be merged. Now that the biggest point of contention is finally being solved, there should be more cooperation between the two groups and, hopefully, less flamage among everyone else. I doubt the maintainers of, say, Pine and Mutt see themselves as rivals. They are just merrily going about their business and scratching their own itch.

Debian screws KDE yet again? (1)

Karma Sucks (127136) | more than 14 years ago | (#805092)

I guess this is why Wichert did not give KDE a ringing endorsement and did not say KDE would be included in Debian. Sigh. When will the foolishness ever end?

I'm fed up with licenses (3)

ragnar (3268) | more than 14 years ago | (#805094)

I've had this idea in my head for a while, and after reading the RMS article and the slashdot discussion I think I'll go license-free with any software I make public. I think a lassaiz-faire approach where the author makes no claims whatsoever seems a better route to go. I can deal with being criticized for a programming choice or any manner of technical issue with software, but I would hate to mediate arguments over a software license.

Re:Heh (2)

jallen02 (124384) | more than 14 years ago | (#805098)

As I mentioned its not that you cant release a GPL'd program in Qt under windows its that the library is not free in Windows meaning you have to pay to compile your Qt app under windows yet the *nix versions of it are free.

They can get away with this because the interface is the same but all the interfacing with Win32/X11 is going to be totally different and is the thing Qt abstracts you from. You dont ever have to see X11 or Win32 window drawing internals.

but only the Unix version is free see here

Trolltech announced today that it will license the upcoming free version of Qt/Unix 2.2 under the GPL (GNU General Public License). Developers will have the option of using the open-source version of Qt 2.2 under either the QPL (Q Public License) or GPL license, depending on their licensing requirements
From there site

Basically they refer to the version most people use as the "Qt Free Edition", which also reads as "Qt/Unix 2.2"

Just means you still have to pay for Qt under windows.. sure your programs GPL'd but you got no lib's to compile it in windows unless you paid.

Jeremy

Re:Don't bash RMS unless you know what you're sayi (1)

Stentapp (19941) | more than 14 years ago | (#805101)

What about XFree86? No licensing problems there linking GPL code to the XFree86 code?

Re:Rather poor statement (1)

djallstar (47818) | more than 14 years ago | (#805102)

i can't believe this was moderated as "flamebait".

RMS is right! (1)

Kenelson (4445) | more than 14 years ago | (#805103)

I agree 100% with his assessment. The KDE crew has made a number of mistakes in not chosing a free software base and then disregarding the licensing issues. Had KDE been a company violating the GPL, we would have been all over them. Instead some people here are agast that he can accuse KDE of doing something wrong.

Notice the all RMS is requesting is for KDE copyright who took code from other GPL projects and gave implicitely permision to link with Qt to ask for forgiveness from the authors they took it from and to clearly add a statement that allowed linking to GPL code in past. How hard is it for KDE to do that? Having recently had to contact all the authors in my project to get code signed over to FSF, I can say that it amounts to just over an hour for each of the lead package developers. I suggest they take the hour and do the appology and link statement.

The problem here is that what RMS asks steps on some people pride. They neither feel it was a mistake to use Qt in the first place nor that once they had the QPL license that adding an exception was needed. RMS who wrote the license gave you his interpretation. The exception was needed and he is willing to forgive it as soon as Qt is switched to GPL. Get over it, everyone makes mistakes. It is time to clean up and move on.

--Karl

Oh for smegs sake, grow up (1)

Julian Morrison (5575) | more than 14 years ago | (#805104)

The man's entitled to cheerlead for his own team, and so's his organization. Quit whingeing - if you want KDE to win, get some cheerleading (or coding) in on your own side.

KDE still getting ragged on (4)

kmem (228603) | more than 14 years ago | (#805106)

Disclaimer: I am a GNOME user.

That being said: It seems that the KDE developers, no matter what they do, no matter what good intentions they hold, always gets bashed by the GNU/GNOME/RMS camp.

If it isn't legal nitpicking then it is outright insults. If it isn't outright insults then it is implict insults ("We hereby grant you forgiveness..") Come on! WHO ARE YOU? GOD?

Sure KDE is a little cartoony looking but it runs well and is stable. Perhaps SOMEBODIES are jealous?

I really doubt I'll get burned for linking to something with a QPL License. I also really doubt I'll make it to the end of the day without my GNOME desktop crashing again.

Thank you Trolltech! And RMS.. (1)

Juln (41313) | more than 14 years ago | (#805110)

It seemed kind of lame to me , the whole QPL deal. This makes a lot more sense! I hope it helps KDE speed along to greater coolness in, um, some way.
You know, I am no fanatic, but I think i owe this man a whole lot, and I sure do wish everyone would stop bashing him for no reason. I was so inspired when I realized that the goal of 'replacing UNIX with GNU/Linux' was taking place in all of the huge UNIX corporations, I had to celebrate!@ Yippee!!

Masterful Intransigence (3)

Chalst (57653) | more than 14 years ago | (#805112)

You've got to take your hat off to RMS. He manages to turn any good
news into bad news. He couldn't quite manage to argue that the QPL
was non-free, but he did manage to argue that it was incompatible with
the GPL (I doubt this claim would stand up in court), and managed to
convince the world that this threatened the end of free software. Now
he takes the psoition that, even when the QPL is replaced by the GPL,
the fact that you ever tried to link against the QPL irrevocably
forfeits your rights to release the software under the GPL.

I hope no-one buys this garbage. It certainly would make a
nonsense of the idea that the GPL respects the freedoms of its users
and developers.

Re:Oooo... RMS says it's ok (5)

slim (1652) | more than 14 years ago | (#805114)

"These licenses only dictate what you can do to the code. Big deal. I've never even LOOKED at the KDE code...

These licences not only dictate what you can do to the code - they also dictate what other people can do to the code. This affects you directly. Whereas before the licenses forbade anyone porting a GPLd program such as (say) The GIMP to KDE, now it is legal.

As a parallel, I seldom look at the Linux kernel code, and I've never submitted a patch -- but the fact that others can and do results in a better engineered, better supported product.

This is pretty balanced stuff from RMS. He acknowledges that the KDE developers have their own set of beliefs, and that software freedom was not the big issue to them as it is to him. The man has principles, and this time, for once, he has chosen merely to state them, rather than to preach. (When he preaches, he preaches damn well...)
--

RMS has a flawed argument (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#805116)

As a professional IT consultant working for one of the Big 5 consultancy firms, I've been working recently on an indepth report on the weaknesses of "open source" software for one of our clients, a company that is mentioned here on occasion.

It seems to me that a fundamental flaw of Mr. Stallman's open source philosophy is that it implies that adherance to his particular license is of more importance than the overal quality and value of a product. Most sources agree that KDE is the superior choice of Linux desktop, yet according to open source proponents GNOME is the better choice simply because it is licensed under the GNU Public License.

This is a major flaw in the reasoning behind open source. When Linux led the start of this movement I doubt Linus Torvalds say the day when people would deliberately choose inferior software to please a man whose ivory tower ideals conflict with real-world realism.

Let me tell you, the corporate world would rather have the quality product rather than the alternatives, even if they don't use the GPL. And since the continued success of Linux relies on it gaining corporate mindshare, maybe it's time for a little more productivity and a little less childishness.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?