QT/GPL licensing trouble 388
Bitscape writes "LWN reports that Corel's gui packager, which uses both QT and lib-apt, fell under a licensing conflict which makes it illegal to distribute. While the author of lib-apt has agreed put an exception in its license for this case, is it a taste of things to come for people who use code released under the ever-expanding mess of incompatible licenses?
"
odd why are just a few things not full gpl? (Score:1)
conflict (Score:2)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
FreeQT (Score:2)
Re:odd why are just a few things not full gpl? (Score:1)
I'm not sure if that's the case here, though.
Re:conflict (Score:2)
Christopher A. Bohn
Re:FreeQT (Score:4)
Re:odd why are just a few things not full gpl? (Score:2)
Basically it depends if you are a control freak or not. I've been thinking of releasing some source code under the GPL, but it is scary. What if somebody a split occurs, or worse still somebody just takes over the project and becomes the 'official' source.
I think most of the problems people have with the GPL is the lack of control they can exert after putting it out to the public. I'm still not sure if I like GPL'ing or BSD'ing code yet. I'll still have to think on that.
Suprise! (Score:4)
Suprise suprise... alot of people here have been dismissing RMS for being "too radical" for saying the GPL is the only truly "free" license. Now you can appreciate, in it's full ugliness, why he's been advocating the distinction between free software and open source.
There is a difference, and you just read about one of them. The GPL or a BSD-style license would not have these issues. The fact that a special exception was required says that the authors are ameniable to change (they didn't have to allow this you know), but wasn't the whole point of this movement to prevent somebody from holding that over your head in the first place?
--
Re:odd why are just a few things not full gpl? (Score:1)
I really ought to preview or at least re-read my replies... *before* I submit them.
BSD (Score:2)
Too many letters... (Score:2)
Get Used to It! (Score:2)
The fact is that people who write software have the right to determine what license to distribute it under. So, no matter how much you wish everything was GPLed, it is not going to happen.
This is why we have people in the community working with people making S/W trying to make sure that licenses work with the OSD, and I think there have been a lot of successes or at least big improvements (QT, Apple, etc.)
Even with their efforts, there are still going to be compromises like this required. It may not be the best solution, but get used to it!
Necessary Evil (Score:1)
If there were a standards body that official stamped things as Open Source, and they required everyone to use, say, GPL, you would loose a lot of developers who don't like GPL and don't want to code under it. Many lisences, even with the headaches they cause, help keep the number of Free Software developers large and growing.
I'd rather have Qt & KDE along with the lisence conflicts, then not Qt/KDE at all. At least the fact that they were able to come to an amicable agreement shows that OSS participants have a sense of community and can actually work together, even through differences of opinion!
Dana
License conflicts is poison (Score:2)
But...
Well, just witness the problems with the whole KDE vs. Gnome conflict. What's the problem, here? I think it essentially boils down to the use of QT in KDE. I rarely see much discussion of the relative merits of the respective GUIs, only philosophical discussions of the two licenses.
What this is doing, people, is breaking down a unity that would serve us very well. This division can only harm us... Sure, we can solve the license problems one by one, and continue arguing about FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. GNU/Linux and what have you. But it's the software that matters. The software is the product, and the various licenses only reflect the philosophy behind the software.
Sure, we can keep solving license problems one by one. But ultimately, we need to proact instead of react. Someone should seriously sit down and think on this problem. The software and the freedom only matter. The rest is details. But as they say, that's where the Devil is.
"Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
GPL, MPL, SCSL - I'm worried (Score:3)
My biggest cooperation concern is MPL, the license for Mozilla's code base. I have great faith in the wisdom and foresight of the Mozilla developers, and i expect it to become the gold standard for browser engines. More importantly, its modular design makes it an easy plug-in for other projects needing a browser interface. And there's the rub... how readily can the Mozilla code be linked to a GPL'd program? I know both the Mozilla and Gnome people are working on the licensing issues, and i hope they'll come up with something that can be extended to use with most other GPL'd software as well.
The other license that worries me is SCSL, associated with Jini and future versions of Java. Again, i think Java is killer technology, and i want to see it grow and mature in cooperation with Linux. But until Java's APIs stabilize, the Open Source variants such as Kaffe (I don't consider SCSL "Open Source") will not be able to catch it in quality. And i want my Java NOW, dammit! So... what sort of licensing hell awaits GPL'd projects that want to use Sun's classes? Yikes!
With the addition of mature Mozilla and Java technology, along with improvements in Linux desktop/WM software, i believe Linux is poised to take the desktop world by storm. I just hope licensing conflicts don't delay it for years to come, and force endless redundant development in order to be compatible with GPL.
---
Maybe that's just the price you pay for the chains that you refuse.
Should the Debian Rules be changed? (Score:1)
Anyways, my feeling is that Debian, and GNU, want to promote free software. Free software is good -- it allows you to change software so that it can fit your needs. It stops the constant reinvention of the wheel. You can combine freely available parts to something greater than their sum.
Now, if you produce some software that is "free" according to the definition, but it can't be used with other free software to produce greater things, what use is it? It has missed the point. The Free Software definition is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The software is not really free, although it conforms to the defintion, because we can't do what we want with it.
Maybe the definition should be changed then. Add another clause indicating that the license must be compatible with the main Free licenses ( GPL, Artistic, BSD ). This will increase our freedom, although it is an extra rule!
Better yet, life would be wonderful if people could use the small set of well known licenses ( GPL, BSD - without advertising, and Artistic ) instead of trying to invent their own. But LWN have already said that.
Hang on, the situation has changed...? (Score:5)
The QT and GPL licenses certainly are potentially in conflict, but whether they are actually in conflict depends on current practice.
IIRC, the GPL contains a clause which allows software to be linked with non-GPL packages if those packages are routinely supplied as part of the OS. Hence you can GPL a Windows application, and you can link applications with Xfree86 which is not GPL.
Now every major Linux distribution is shipping QT and KDE, doesn't QT now fall under this same exception?
I like the GPL, but you have a point. (Score:1)
GPL'd, it'll never become popular with the Unix heavyweights, no matter how clever it is. They'd have to open all their source, so they just won't use it.
LGPL'd they'll look at you blankly.
BSD'd, they'll grab it and hack it to support different file formats, LDAP etc, but it'll *be* there and you'll end up with a cross platform config management API that you can code to.
That's why Perl comes with everything these days.
Would it make sense? (Score:1)
Getting everyone to write under GPL assumes there is no self-interest anywhere in the community, (except, maybe, for the nice ego boost we all like
If I want to write something that calls libc6 and qt's libraries, they call two different liscensing schemes there. Does that mean that i can not use programmes that use both?
slashmirror (Score:1)
Imminent death of Qt predicted! (Score:2)
Qt's restrictive license, while technically "Open Source", has very much hampered its growth, and led to the rise of serious competition in the form of GTK (which is safely GPL'd). And i expect that, in time, GTK will leave Qt no more than a niche market. Why? Because TrollTech put their own business interest ahead of the long-term health of the software. Free software is no place for half measures.
The best corporate-protection license i've seen is MPL, which gives Netscape some special privileges but still allows the community to fork the code.
---
Maybe that's just the price you pay for the chains that you refuse.
Re:GPL, MPL, SCSL - I'm worried (Score:1)
No Hell.
Using SUN's classes puts you under NO distribution restrictions for your own code. You may not have a licence to redistribute SUN's code, but then anyone that has a JVM has those classes anyway.
So writing GPLed Java code is legally ok.
IANAL of course.
Damn, what a mess (Score:2)
It's hard to blame Corel for this, and I suspect many other "new developers" in the Linux community will fall into this trap, unknowingly.
Maybe at the extreme, it needs to be "use GPL or don't play in the Linux field". Remember, there is nothing that says you can't make money off GPL software (I am right now).
If we're all so sure that Open Source is the way of the future, than this GPL limitation shouldn't matter once all software is on a level playing field.
GRH
(flames happily directed to
GPL is evil (Score:1)
Well, good luck. One day you'll find out that there is a lot of good stuff out there that people objects to being taken control by GPL.
Well.. (Score:1)
..the obvious problem with the BSD-style licensing scheme is that GPL partisans simply won't use it, because while the spirit may be the same, for those that advocate the GPL, the BSD license is simply not practical. This is because not many developers want to work for nothing to have their products later turned into something proprietary by someone else who rakes in cash with it while the developer never sees a dime of it (though to be fair, some companies actually give you an oppurtunity to work on GPL'ed code for pay). You might as well be on company time if that's going to happen.
At any rate, arguing about which is better, the BSD license or the GPL license, is sort of moot. Most of the weight has been thrown behind GNU/Linux, not *BSD, so the popular choice is quite clear. Some people don't want to compromise their freedom, others simply wish to avoid the aforementioned scenario (with Kaffe being a prime example, it used to be under BSD licensing, but is now GPL'ed because the maintainer got sick of people never contributing back to the main code base).
Mind you, I'm not saying which is ``better'' either. That's.. pointless.. because that would be assuming that everyone has the same outlook. They don't. BSD is better.. for certain people.. while the GPL is better.. for certain others.. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. And the BSD is not very good at accomplishing what people who prefer the GPL are used to expecting, so the GPL is going to remain the sexier license in the eyes of most of the developers relavent to this topic of conversation.
Troubling... (Score:1)
But what I don't understand is where exactly the problem is. Maybe I'm missing something about the GPL here, but explain if you will how KDE and most KDE apps are GPLed, but yet use the Qt library. You can't tell me that KDE doesn't use any GPLed (or at least LGPLed) library code as well.
I was under the impression that the only way in which the GPL infected apps was up the inheritence tree. So as long as Corel's program is GPLed it should be fine.
So what exactly is the problem here? Is it that it has to be statically linked because it's an installer? Does that somehow make it count as it the QPL code has become part of the application? I'm a bit confused here, maybe somebody can enlighten me.
Re:FreeQT (Score:1)
You can have that UI lib today, care you use a somewhat non-standard programming language. Go look at Modula 3 [digital.com]. I think it is an open source system, but I do not know to what extent it is compatible with the GPL.
Lars
--
Re:conflict (Score:1)
I don't understand why lib_apt is under the GPL, and not the LGPL. The LGPL is designed exactly for this situation.
If people on slashdot spent half as much time... (Score:4)
I'm aware I might get flamed for this, but so be it. I tire of the "me toos", RMS "rah rah" crowd, knee-jerk-reaction-crowd-to-geek/privacy-instrusi
The real point being.. (Score:1)
The GPL was never designed to be accomodating of other licensing schemes. It is written specifically in opposition to that very notion (although someone once said the only license it was compatible with was itself.. but then.. there's the LGPL, isn't there? ;). It was not designed to win any popularity contensts. The only thing the GPL was designed to do was to be free, and remain free forever (free as in free software as defined by RMS). BSD was designed to let you do practically anything you want to it. The GPL is more restrictive. Using BSD style stuff instead of GPL'ed stuff means it's not copylefted, which means it may not always be free. Think about how close we came to losing the X Window System to the world of proprietary software, for instance.
To repeat the main thrust of this, RMS was laboring under a moral imperative, he wanted to produce free software, not popular at any cost software. He doesn't want to LGPL everything to accomodate others. Proprietary software has enough backing already. He wants to empower free software. BSD style licensing has nothing to do with that .. Which is why it won't replace the GPL as ``the license of choice'', whatever McCusick or anyone else may think.
This is NOT explained very well (Score:2)
This makes no sense - WHERE is the problem? Does the GPL license explicitly force any libraries it uses to be GPL? I don't think that's so. If it were I imagine a lot of software out there would be invalidated.
Perhaps the REAL problem here is the GPL'd library. RMS pushes libraries to be placed under GPL instead of LGPL explicitly to force the applications that use them to be GPL. I think Corel's app is GPL, so that's OK.
It seems the real solution is for the GPL library's author to place the library under LGPL, so this kind of thing doesn't happen again. RMS advocates GPL libraries so that ONLY GPL applications can use them, which does help to give free software an advantage if the library does really good things. But it does play havoc with anything not exclusively GPL.
Re:BSD (Score:3)
If you use GPL, the commercial companies don't like it. They have a hard time figuring out how to sell it.
If you use BSD, the rip-off artists love you, but they don't share back.
If you use MPL, one knot-hole acts as a filter for all possible changes, and one knot-head can really set up impedance.
Personally, my preference is GPL. I understand why the commercial ventures don't like it, but some of their reasons for not liking it are the same as my reasons for liking it.
OTOH, Sun wrote almost all of Java, so it's properly their ball and court. Play there if you want to.
And Netscape wrote a complete starter for Mozilla. The team may have later decided to dump much of the code, but even then Netscape was paying for much the development work. So it's their ball and court.
Troll-tech seems to be trying to be accomodating, but this is also the software that they are earning their livlihoods from. They wrote it. They are trying to get it into wide use so that it will be used commercially (which is when they make money).
As a combination end-user/developer my preferences are for GPL, GTK, etc.
Licensing is is the essence of why I would rather use Python than Java, but it sure would be nice if Python had Java screen painters/class libraries/printing/IDE's (on the windows side, anyway). OTOH, Python has better database access and integration with C. But at least on windows Python (or possibly tkInter) crashes too often to use it, so there really isn't a choice.
because RMS doesn't like it (Score:1)
I'd rather reply than see this one moderated down (Score:3)
It is wrong wrong wrong and extremely impolite to accuse GPL of being a viral license because an application that links against or is based on a GPL'd app must be GPL.
Someone was kind enough to write a piece of software and give it away. Why shouldn't the auther be able to make the reasonable request that all future uses of that software be equally free? I for one don't want the code I give away turned into commercial products without any benafit to me.
It's not "live and let live" when you base code on my work. That's my work too in there, and I deserve a say in how it's used.
Re:You're clueless (Score:1)
n any event, the Debian-legal mailing list mentioned in the article, is probably a good place to be looking for this.
It works both ways... (Score:2)
Fair enough, but I could come up with equally valid examples of where the BSD license has failed the community. Yes, in this case, the BSD license would have prevented the problem. In other cases I've come across, the GPL would have prevented other problems. At the end of the day, I personally feel the GPL creates less problems than the BSD license, which is why I prefer it. You, and others, are welcome to disagree with me...
Re:BSD (Score:2)
Why you should use the LGPL for your next program (Score:3)
(see "Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library [gnu.org]" if you don't know what I'm talking about.)
Seriously, free software has seen the successes it has because it shows about the right amount of cooperation with proprietary software. You can't reach into the sources of a GPL application, change it, and sell it as a proprietary application - but you can connect to a GPL server with your proprietary client, or run your proprietary app on your GPL kernel.
As far as I'm concerned, the LGPL fixes a potential bug in the GPL - one way that two separate pieces of software can talk, dynamic library linking, might not be allowed, so we explicitly permit it. Yet RMS seems to think this bug should stay. As far as I can see, this artificial distinction will only make calls from proprietary software into free software (or vice versa) somewhat less convenient: you have to go through CORBA or some similar gateway.
I think that use of the LGPL (the "Liberal General Public License", as I now dub it in riposte) would most usefully increase - that all new programs should start using this license, since it seems increasingly that today's standalone program is tomorrow's library.
--
Totally innaccurate article. (Score:2)
What I'm surprised by.. (Score:2)
..is that no one is talking about the fact that this is yet another instance where Corel didn't ``get it'' with regards to licensing. Unless they've been brainwashed by the media (which would have you believe that the GPL == public domain), then Corel should know that the GPL is indeed a copyright (or copyleft, if you prefer), and that they must abide by the licensing. It is not public domain, which means ``without copyright'', where they can screw it around all they want. If anything, the GPL would do the screwing around if the author of the relavent software so wished. Quite a difference, that.
Personally, I don't trust this entire thing. I for one wouldn't want to contribute to any GPL'ed project if the maintainers/authors of the software chose to make special exceptions ``just this once''. If they want to be accomodating, there are plenty of other licensing schemes, such as the LGPL. Making ``exceptions'' is against the spirit of the GPL. And no, I'm not talking about this software, specifically, but in the broader scheme of things where things could get.. really ugly.
Re:Hang on, the situation has changed...? (Score:4)
There is absolutely nothing "essential" about QT for Linux...I can rm that tree, and my system will reboot just fine. You can't however simply remove the Windows\System directory, and expect anything to work properly.
Before this degenerates into yet another GPL vs. the world flamewar, let me take this opportunity to stand in the pulpit. Those who release their code under the GPL are doing so because, just possibly, they believe in certain ideals about the way software (especially their software!!!) should be used. We _must_ respect those ideals, or else we open the Gates of Troy wide open to those who would love to pillage the jewels that Open Source has produced.
Now we are growing at a tremendous rate, and perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the GPL's details to assure that it has strengthened, and not weakened, with age. I won't make a case for or against, but as the topic seems to spark such fire, there may definitely be some benefit to an objective analysis of the whole situation.
Nonetheless, right now the strongest thing that stands in the way of a marauding band of corporate source-code raiders and the work we've done over the past few years _is_ the GPL. We must not betray it.
Re:This is NOT explained very well (Score:2)
RMS wants the GPL to be used instead of the LGPL precisely to force derived works to be GPL'd. As he explains it, the Lesser GPL should only be used when there's already a popular non-free library with the same functionality. In such a situation, a developer could use the non-free library to develop non-free apps, so the compromise is to use LGPL to try to get the free libraries used, even if the derived works don't end up free.
Christopher A. Bohn
You got it wrong. (Score:2)
As for RMS being too radical, he _has_ acknowledged that Qt is free software, and _has_ said suggested that authers of GPL software include a special exception if someone wants to link it with Qt, even though he dislikes the QPL.
Re:I'd rather reply than see this one moderated do (Score:2)
Erm, that was the point.
If you consider this virus a good thing then fine. Others don't.
Personally I think the best licence is the one I tend to use: Mixed AL/GPL (a-la perl).
The point being is that most of my free code is in the form of libraries. I will not restrict the use of my code to non-commercial developers (OK, there are a few commercial GPL developers, but not many). I can't expect an in-house application to have to be GPL'd. And personally I think the world is a better place because of my lenient attitude.
My code should be free. I don't force that idea upon others.
Matt.
Not quite.. (Score:5)
RMS doesn't want people to stop using LGPL, period. As outlined by the link you provided, he only wants the LGPL to be used when its of strategic advantage (that is, it benefits free software more than it hurts it) to usher in the software in question into being a de facto standard across the board. the GNU C Library is a perfect example of this. Everybody has their own version of a C Library. glibc isn't anything special in this regard. LGPL it, however, and you'll have everyone using it because it's easier than brewing your own. It also ensures that more programs calling on that library will be compatible here and elsewhere without much modification.
What RMS doesn't want to see, however, is software that gives free software a definitive edge (that is, if it does something much better than existing software, or something completely different -- and naturally you'd want the OS to be GPL'ed, duh) being LGPL'ed (which is why I'm still wondering why the Berlin Consortium chose the LGPL.. the proprietary Unices -- and free ones -- currently have X. Berlin would give free Unices an edge if it were GPL'ed.. oh well), because that doesn't help free software.
Read for content, AC (Score:4)
The *point*, which you obviously missed, is that the merely semi-free licenses like Qt's are at a serious disadvantage in the "marketplace of ideas" when competing with GPL or BSD licenses. Developers are more likely to work with code they can trust... they can't trust Qt. Which is why, in the end, i expect to see Qt marginalized by GTK, not for GTK's technical superiority, but because the license terms are better for Free software developers. Free speech is better than free beer.
Remember, the ONLY reason TrollTech opened up the Qt license as much as they did was because the community was abandoning KDE for Gnome, almost entirely for licensing reasons. If Qt's license hadn't changed, i think KDE would be nearly irrelevant now. As it is, i think Qt's license didn't change enough, and it only delayed the problem.
Of course, if you think i'm just another fanatical RMS clone, then you won't be able to see beyond your prejudices to the deeper point.
---
Maybe that's just the price you pay for the chains that you refuse.
Superior product or superior process? (Score:2)
The way I see it, the point of free software isn't software for its own good; it is freedom for its own good. If open source software lags behind commercial ventures, then so be it. The importance is that it is free and can never be taken away. I think that this is what RMS is trying to say, and I think that it's the point that is lost five seconds after he says it; the debate degenerates into a matter of faith, not reason, that fast.
--
Re:Suprise! (Score:2)
Actually, the problem was because of GPL, in my opinion. The license that purports to be the "free" one is the one that's being the most demanding and dictatorial here. The idea of being free (as in freedom) is good, and should be along the lines of "use this software to enable other good software, in whatever way the person writing the new software desires." Meaning that people should be free to extend with other free and/or open source software, with slightly modified licenses like Qt, as shareware, or as full-blown commercial software. That would be a truly free license.
The GPL "freedom" is like saying "sure, you're free as long as you do things exactly like we want you to." Sorry, but that just doesn't get it.
Ease of special exception is the concern (Score:4)
In my opinion what the free source movement needs is the equivalent of cross-licensing, and no, GPL is not cross-licensing when it cannot freely be used in BSD licensed or X licensed code.
So a corporation like Corel can just call up Debian on the phone and instantly get an exemption while an unknown student would not be able to freely study the library code to re-use in his
projects throughout his latter career? I predict no one else on Slashdot will see how wrong this inequity is, and that is the problem.
As a example of how absurd the current situation is, there are maybe a half dozen incomplete attempts to reproduce Microsoft's Windows headers. No one seems to see the big picture that what is needed are one set of headers that are good enough so that serious projects would consider not having to shell out the licenses to buy Microsoft's development tools. No, entities such as Cygnus want to keep the code under whatever license is restrictive enough (GPL) so that if lightning strikes they can make a fortune by selective commercial licensing, so therefore we have perpetual beta products.
Totally accurate article (was: Totally innaccurate (Score:2)
This is totally false. Linking a program against a GPL library makes (this particular copy of) the whole program GPL'd. If the program is licensed so that it can be distributed under the GPL (for example the BSD license without the advertising clause and the MIT X license allow this), there is no problem.
That is why libraries use the *LGPL*
This is again false. The L in LGPL used to stand for Library, but this was confusing people, so it now stands for Lesser. It is perfectly all right to license a library under the GNU GPL, in fact, the GNU project encourages people to do that. They regard GNU LGPL as inferior in all respects (as the name suggests); only rarely does a GNU library use the LGPL.
This is the only library I ever heard to use GPL
In that case you have very limited knowledge on free software. There are many examples of GPL'd libraries, including GNU readline and Guile (which has a similar but more general exception clause to the one mentioned in this story).
Re:Hang on, the situation has changed...? (Score:3)
Actually, the relevant clause in the GPL reads (emphasis mine):
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
So, in this case, both get_it and QT accompany eachother (distributed on the same CD), and therefore, this exception does not apply.
--
Re:Hang on, the situation has changed...? (Score:2)
But I think that there is still a borderline case that could be made for QT being an "essential system library". If you have a KDE based system with Kdm then your machine will not even boot properly when QT is removed. Furthermore, none of your base applications, with the exception of Netscape, will work.
In the case of Corel and Caldera, I'm not even sure the installer will work without QT.
Now admittedly in the Linux community we recognize the difference between OS and GUI. You can still boot the system in console mode and have a fully functioning operating system.
However, this exactly parallels the situation with Windows: if you remove the widget-set-which-has-no-name, you system won't function normally. You can still boot to DOS mode, but you can't perform normal system management tasks or run base applications. And yet the GPL was written with the intent of allowing GPL'ed apps on top of non-free systems such as Windows (Indeed in the early days of the FSF there were only proprietary unices to run GPL stuff on).
So, while I agree on philosophical grounds with the choice of the GPL whenever possible, I find it hard to see how GPL applications on QT are fundamentally different to GPL applications on Windows.
Even so, the argument is borderline. If QT continues to spread I think it will become hard to refute.
Re:Suprise! (Score:3)
What we need is for RMS to back down on his "Don't use LGPL" stand (because he's very influential) and have people use that wherever possible. Either that or the AL/GPL combo.
How would I know if I violated a license? (Score:2)
If all free software used a single license, these questions wouldn't be so difficult to answer. But since this ain't gonna happen, it seems to me that the licenses we use should try to avoid this mess, rather than causing it.
Re:FreeQT (Score:2)
More conflicts (Score:2)
I understand that these programs (like KDE) could actually be released under a modified GPL but, to the best of my knowlege, none of them are. Is there a conflict or isn't there?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:Imminent death of Qt predicted! (Score:2)
the point is, there is substantial reason to believe that GPL/BSD "free software" licenses make code more likely to survive and thrive in the long run.
Really? What "substantial reason" is there? That just sounds like IMHO BS to me.
Qt's restrictive license, while technically "Open Source", has very much hampered its growth, and led to the rise of serious competition in the form of GTK (which is safely GPL'd).
I would hardly say that Qt's license has hampered it's growth. Maybe before the license was revised, but the fact is that most of the major distro's have adopted KDE.
KDE is also a superior product, which will help it win out in the end. Objections of GPL licensing wanks won't stop it, despite what you might hope for.
The point is that there are going to be lots of licenses (GPL, LGPL, Mozilla, BSD, Apple, Qt, etc. etc.). Learning to get along with others is much more productive that wishing that everything is GPLed or making wacko predictions about GPLed code outliving code released under other licenses.
GTK+ is LGPL'ed, actually. (Score:2)
Qt's restrictive license, while technically "Open Source", has very much hampered its growth, and led to the rise of serious competition in the form of GTK (which is safely GPL'd).
According to its web site [gtk.org], GTK+ is LGPL'ed.
This is important, because it means you can write proprietary software for GTK+/GNOME.
I see things a little differently. (Score:3)
Which brings me to my second point. What does it matter if some little company in California creates a closed source product? Whose freedom does this impinge on? With the exception software patents, everyone else is essentially free to code as they please. The point being that the two can exist simultaneously. Yet RMS has been known to advocate prirating commercial software.
Futhermore, GPL software has, for the most part, been totally unfriendly to geeks. Not only in "userfriendliness" and GUIs, but also in terms of software functionality and purposes. In general, it is software that appeals to geeks and geeks alone. To advocate RMS's idea of freedom, is to say: The geeks' right to code free of non-free-software influences, exceeds the right of the average user to enjoy software that meets their needs. I disagree.
Both free and non-free software have certain unique advantages over one another. Not only can they coexist, but they're strengthened by one another -- they push one another to mature and expand in scope. So I come full circle. Let both do their best to succeed; let the cards fall where they may. As a matter of optimizing the results though, free software should worry about what is going on within its own community. Bolster and explain free software, but don't try to tear down anything that is not free.
LWN admits error (Daniel M. Duley) (Score:5)
Daniel M. Duley
mosfet@jorsm.com Sorry, I don't have an account and Slashdot hasn't sent me a password yet
s/unfriendly to geeks/unfriendly to non-geeks/ (Score:2)
Re:I Read for Content and saw none (Score:2)
As for your comments about Netscape, all i can say is "HUH?" Because Netscape is now owned by another company, they're not expected to be profitable? Their license is liberal because they *listened* to the community, not just reacted to it. Of course, Netscape is a relatively broad company that is not dependent on its browser for revenues, and improving the health of the browser market (via a Free alternative) improves Netscape's overall profitability. TrollTech, otoh, appears to be a one-horse company. It's possible, but difficult, to run a company on 100% GPL profits.
Perhaps the best thing for Qt would be for TrollTech to fail... then the license would pass into a more truly open state.
---
Maybe that's just the price you pay for the chains that you refuse.
Re:Ease of special exception is the concern (Score:4)
The copyright holder can license the code in any way he/she wishes. In this case it appears Jason Gunthorpe considers being able to link to Qt a feature instead of a bug.
And this exemption is being granted only to a commercial entity.
No, the exemption was made so that anyone could link libapt-2.5 against Qt. It was not Corel-specific, that would be silly, if that was the case Debian itself wouldn't be able to use Corel's installer. (this is why DFSG [debian.org] rules #5, #6, and #8 exist).
So a corporation like Corel can just call up Debian on the phone and instantly get an exemption while an unknown student would not be able to freely study the library code to re-use in his projects throughout his latter career?
I don't get it. The exemption applies to everyone, including J. Random Student. Plus, even before the exemption, the library was GPL'd, so the student would have ample provisions to study and re-use it in his projects. He would just have to GPL them. In fact, he would still have to do that.
BTW, you don't just "call up Debian on the phone". You call up (or email) a developer. We're volunteers, we don't have a receptionist, let alone an office. And if there's any license changes to be done, it'll typically be done in writing, clearly documented in the package (/usr/doc/packagename/copyright) in a fresh new release.
Yet another thing I've been waiting for... (Score:3)
Once again, I've been proven right though. Can't contest it. I said a few months back when this was originally announced that Corel's gonna have licensing issues, especially with Debian. Corel doesn't understand the DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines) and doesn't care so much about them.
This immediately puts Corel into conflict with a good many packages in Debian, pretty much. Told you so. *smirk*
What bothers me, however, is that while I'm not some GPL hardliner, or DFSG hardliner even - the author is compromising his license.
There's one license I won't tolerate - and that's a compromised one. The author owns the software, and how he chooses to license it is his decision. No author should be forced to bow to anyone because they cannot create a derivitive work with a compatible license. This is Corel's problem, and they should be working to rectify it properly - by writing software that can be licensed compatibly, not by basically forcing the author into compromising his license.
Look at it this way; should I put a new stereo in my car, just because big corporation XYZ says so? That's how I'm looking at this - you may view it differently, but IMNSHO, that's not how it is. Here, a maintainer is basically being told to compromise on his license because a corporation says so. I don't believe for a second that this is right. Even for the good of the distribution as a whole, it simply is not right.
If Corel's going to consider DFSG a hinderance that the maintainers and authors have to work around, then I think that Corel had best get off it's butt, find a new distribution that doesn't care about author's rights and the DFSG, and start from scratch. This is nothing short of bullying, almost Microsoft-style, to make sure they get their way so they can turn a profit.
Yes, it's going to increase Debian's user base - assuming Corel isn't found guilty in the Canadian's SEC-thing investigation - but it's now doing it at the cost of author's rights and freedoms. They've already had one licensing blunder - this makes two - how many more will there be? Eleven? Thirty? Fifty? For all we know, the entire distribution could end up being totally incompatible with the GPL or DFSG. Maybe Corel will change their license, or maybe they won't. Time will tell on that.
But at this point, it's my belief that the entirety of Corel's base - which is Debian - has now been compromised, as well as Debian as a distribution alone. Sure, Corel can throw in fancy things like WordPerfect 2000 and Corel DRAW! and other neat applications that would fall under 'non-free' at best. But they're doing it at an incredible cost. I really have a hard time accepting the compromise of a license as 'reasonable' in any situation whatsoever. If the author wants to license their software in a specific way, then that is their right to do so. They licensed it how they wanted it, they can change the license, but never should they be forced to change the license.
We already know Qt/Qtlib/KDE is non-DFSG compliant. Corel said 'we don't care.' Corel blatantly ignored the restrictions of the GPL and other licenses when they released the beta. Now they're basically forcing authors to change their licenses so they can attempt to save their finances.
Maybe Corel should have just gotten RedHat. At this rate, their ethics and intelligence are about the same level. Maybe even as bad as Microsoft, who frequently bullies programmers who use their products. It's trendy to hate Microsoft, though, so I'm sure this will get moderated down as 'flamebait' or 'troll' by the people who have never actually authored anything.
Ah well. Some days, it's just not worth getting out of bed, I guess. Much less out of bed to program. Maybe I should put a clause in my programs that says they can't be used by Corel for profit. See how they handle that one. *sigh* Yet another day of SNAFU. Situation Normal, All Fucked Up. Maybe someday we'll see some honest and decent corporations, but I guess it's going to have to wait for now - the almighty dollar calls again.
-RISCy Business | Rabid unix guy, networking guru
Well.. (Score:2)
My point still stands though, most comments on slashdot are sychophantic -- which appeal to slashdot's own unique formula for dogma. They could contribute, yet most don't. It'd certainly be more effective than, well, doing the slashdot dance.
Well.. (Score:2)
My point still stands though, most comments on slashdot are sycophantic -- which appeal to slashdot's own unique formula for dogma. They could contribute, yet most don't. It'd certainly be more effective than, well, doing the slashdot dance.
Re:Hang on, the situation has changed...? (Score:2)
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or
with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not
bring the other work under the scope of this License.
So the fact that QT and get_it are on the same CD does not bring them under the scope of the GPL, since QT is not based on get_it. Neither does copying them to the HDD.
Hmm. Trying to reconcile all those terms for run-time linking is tough. Part of the problem seems to be that the GPL is written more for apps than for OS components.
Oh well, maybe someone cleverer than me can puzzle it out!
Re:More conflicts (Score:2)
So, my question is: Corel's app aside, how can anything be released using the Free Edition of QT?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
"Flamebait"? Why is this "Flamebait"???? (Score:2)
If the answers to these questions are "yes" and "yes" then this is not flamebait; it is the victim of political oppression by the GPL jihad.
On the other hand, if the author is guilty only of hyperbole in saying "all" other open source licenses, does that really constitute "flamebait"?
Methinks the moderator is a wee bit touchy...
Risking my Karma (Score:5)
Please think seriously before you create a unique license for your software product. Please use the GPL or the BSD style license if you can.
I don't want to overreact. I understand that the author is simply trying to encourage the use of established Open Source licenses. In fact, it has been my personal experience that many developers who fear the GPL don't entirely understand it ("The GPL causes me to sign over my copyright to the FSF. I can't modify my own program and sell it closed-source to someone later.")
But I want to make a simple point -- the developer has an absolute right to determine the license under which his/her product is released. If Joe Programmer releases the most killer Linux app ever, but his license agreement requires you to hop on one foot to the mailbox and mail him a check once a month, then you either start hopping or you don't use the program. You can send Joe nasty emails, you can publicly flame him on slashdot, but none of that changes Joe's right to use his General Hopping License. If you can't handle the GHL, Joe's product is useless to you.
Re:Hang on, the situation has changed...? (Score:2)
This is what I don't get. How come we're expected to respect the library developer's ideals of the way software should be used, and not those of a developer using a library? There are licences available (e.g. LGPL) that don't allow the so-called "pillage of the jewels" but do allow developers who use that code freedom to choose the licence they want.
GPL is great for software, but just plain silly for libraries.
Matt.
Re: Re: (Score:2)
Which brings me to my second point. What does it matter if some little company in California creates a closed source product? Whose freedom does this impinge on? With the exception software patents, everyone else is essentially free to code as they please. The point being that the two can exist simultaneously. Yet RMS has been known to advocate pirating commercial software.
Futhermore, GPL software has, for the most part, been totally unfriendly to geeks. Not only in "userfriendliness" and GUIs, but also in terms of software functionality and purposes. In general, it is software that appeals to geeks and geeks alone. To advocate RMS's idea of freedom, is to say: The geeks' right to code free of non-free-software influences, exceeds the right of the average user to enjoy software that meets their needs. I disagree.
Both free and non-free software have certain unique advantages over one another. Not only can they coexist, but they're strengthened by one another -- they push one another to mature and expand in scope. So I come full circle. Let both do their best to succeed; let the cards fall where they may. As a matter of optimizing the results though, free software should worry about what is going on within its own community. Bolster and explain free software, but don't try to tear down anything that is not free.
PS: I took the liberty of cut and pasting this from another of my replies in this thread.
This clause was carved out for Motif (Score:3)
There is absolutely nothing "essential" about QT for Linux...I can rm that tree, and my system will reboot just fine. You can't however simply remove the Windows\System directory, and expect anything to work properly.
While accurate, you miss the context of why that original clause was amended to the GPL. RMS wanted to make certain that software authors could write GPL'd Motif software, which at the time was (and some could arguably write still is for commercial vendors) the most popular GUI widget library available for UNIX and it's clones. RMS didn't want to prevent Free Software authors from writing useful code, so he carved out a niche for Motif and told everyone to go ahead a write free Motif code.
Now I ask you, since Motif is completely closed source while QT meets most "Open Source" guidelines by at least Eric Raymond's perspective, how is this clause usable with Motif and yet unavailable for QT? Or better put, how is a closed source Motif allowed to use the "Essential system libraries" clause while an "Open Source" QT can't, when they perform exactly the same system level services?
Beats me. RMS, can you chime in here???
I'd disagree. (Score:2)
In my experience, the people who DO the most are those who SAY the least. Words are cheap. Action is not. In short, put your money where your mouth is. Make it work; others will follow. That is the real nature of man.
Re:Risking my Karma (Score:2)
>developer has an absolute right to determine the
>license under which his/her product is released.
>If Joe Programmer releases the most killer Linux
>app ever, but his license agreement requires you
>to hop on one foot to the mailbox and mail him a
>check once a month, then you either start
>hopping or you don't use the program.
As a corollary Joe has has the right to relicense his code, so if say Corel wanted to incorporate Joe's code they could call him up and negotiate as separate license with whatever terms are mutually agreeable. They Corel could use Joe's program however their new Corel and Joe private license C&JpL allowed while every one else still had to hop on one foot to the mail box every month to keep using Joe's killer program.
What a Mess (Score:2)
GPLinglibraries is just plain stupid. How do you ever expect someone to write a program using your library if they don't even understand the licensing issues? Especially if he is just some late night hacker making a cool program. He doesn't have the time, the energy, or the knowledge to work out the licensing issues. That's the very reason he came to Linux in the first place: he wanted freedom from restrictions, so he write some code and share it with others.
I believe this is a case of can't see the forest for the trees. At this point we've got SO many licenses, we are all arguing over which is better for a specific purpose. Isn't the purpose just supposed to be to write good software that people can use and modify without worry? Why create and continue to perpetuate all these silly licenses?
The community needs to stop and think about all this, and consolidate on a few GOOD licenses that will work together. The GPL and LGPL are good starts, but this debacle proves that the Linux game is still too complicated for many people (including corporations) to play. I know I don't want to check the license of every single library I use, to make sure they don't conflict (especially when I don't have the knowledge to understand them in the first place.) The fact is, I'm a coder, not a lawyer, and I'm certain there are a lot more like me out there. We've got to simplify these issues, and fast, before it gets to be a real problem.
I can see it now...Microsoft's Linux Myths II - why licensing makes Linux too much trouble. Sadly, they would have a point...
Re:Examples? (Score:2)
A friend of mine wrote some software which was released under a BSD style license. He handed the project over to a maintainer because he didn't have enough time to continue developing it. After some time, the new maintainer took it proprietary, depriving the community of the improvements made to the codebase. My friend now regrets not making it GPL in the first place. Yes, we still have the old codebase, but we'd have to duplicate a lot of code that the new maintainer's already done just to get back up to par with him. GPL would have prevented that. I agree that at the end of the day, the developer should be free to choose the license they're most comfortable with. For me, that's GPL, in a large part due to the above.
I haven't mentioned the name of my friend or the product, because it's not my place to air his grievances in public. That said, he reads slashdot, so he's free to name himself if he so chooses.
Well... (Score:2)
If you give the source away, you give the program away.
Indeed.
Now, if you mean to imply that as soon as a copy of source "escapes", the market goes away because everyone can get a copy at more or less zero cost, then that's just wrong.
If their market had dried up as soon as gratis copies were circulating, RedHat would only have been able to sell at most one copy of their distribution.
Giving away software doesn't mean that your market dissapears.
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org [berlin-consortium.org]
Re:Risking my Karma (Score:2)
I don't know why so many moderators think DonkPunch's posting is insightful. Of course authors have the right to choose the licenses they want; it's not like anyone didn't know that before reading DonkPunch's comment.
But this is irrelevant: the original article made a request: that people use one of the well-established licenses, rather than creating new, incompatible ones. Clearly anyone has the absolute right to make whatever requests that they want to make. A surprising number of people have trouble distinguishing requests from orders.
So rights are simply irrelevant here. When you come right down to it, the author has five main choices:
If the author wants to do one of the first three, his/her purpose is accomplished by using a BSD-like license, the GPL, or the LGPL respectively, so there's no point coming up with a new license. If the user wants to do the fourth, it's better than nothing, but it creates problems with license incompatibilities, not just with the GPL, but with other, similar licenses.
The biggest problem is with putting some oddball license on a library, since it may mean that it's not legal to use that library with some other open-source software. I'll bet that a lot of people who want to do something QPL-like could, instead, do something like use the LGPL and also ask people for copyright assignments for changes.
Re:Imminent death of Qt predicted! (Score:2)
As for the ability to "fork" by releasing diffs against the "official" source... puh-leeese! That's a fig leaf of a fork, just barely enough to get Open Source certification. It would seriously hamper any efforts to fork the tree, should forking become necessary. It leaves the fork 100% dependent on the "official" tree, making it exceedingly difficult for the fork to survive.
---
Maybe that's just the price you pay for the chains that you refuse.
Well... (Score:2)
Hmmm... (Score:2)
However, I really, really fail to see why it is that these licensing issues come up. I believe it's calles a Section 10 Exception, people. That is, an exception to the GPL which grants the user rights to distribute a specific component of the software under non-GPL terms. I use one myself in the ICQ client I'm working on, to allow for distribution even though you can't distribute PowerPlant (the framework I'm writing it with).
It's not so hard. KDE could have done it before QPL. Corel could do it now. Honest question: why don't people do this when such issues come up? Yeah, I know it isn't "pure" GPL, but sometimes you've gotta do what you've gotta do to get the code out there.
proprietary forks = death (was Re:Yes!) (Score:2)
magically disappear if someone does a proprietary
fork. The old code is still there. But have
you ever heard people talk about how code needs
to be maintained or "bit rot" sets in?
A free software project is more than just the
code, the code also needs a critical mass of
developer (and user) attention in order to keep
going.
If the energy of the community becomes split
by a proprietary fork, it may turn out
that the free project that you've been
investing time in has suddenly vaporized.
All your bug reports, all the patches you've
written, all the time you've spent learning
to use the software, *and* all the time
you've spent evangelizing, trying to get
other people on board, all of this is
now at risk. There's now someone out their
dangling checks, bribing your friends to run
off and hide and play by themselves. If you want
to stay in the community, you now have to send
them a check (or accept one of their checks,
along with their non-disclosure agreements).
In practice the project may not survive this
split, and despite everyone's dreams of avarice,
the piles of money may not even appear for
the defectors.
So, in my opinion it's kind of a mistake to
focus on just the raw code. And what the GPL is
*really* for is not exactly the preservation
of freedom (though don't tell RMS I said
that), it's more a matter of preserving a
community. (You could call this
"communitarianism" but that term is taken
already.)
-- Joe Brenner, part-time GPL zealout
(The example I have in mind here is postgresql,
which has been through *two* proprietary
splits in it's history. On the one hand, it
now looks like it's doing okay, but on the
other hand those forks clearly were pretty
bad blows that it took a long time to recover
from.)
This is a non-issue (Score:2)
On a tangent, the purpose of a library is to be linked to. This is not deriving from the library, merely a "use" of the library, and the GPL expressly permits any and all uses of GPL'd code. The only thing it restricts is modifications and distributions. Even if the library was under the strictest proprietary license available, linking to it is still covered under the "fair use" clause of copyright.
The more I see articles like this the more I'm glad I switched to BSD for my own code. That way any downstream developers know they won't get their asses sued off for sharing code with their friends.
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
Re:Not quite.. (Score:2)
RMS wants exclusivity. He is not interested in freedom for users of proprietary software, he is interested in freedom for GNU. If something gives an advantage to GNU he is for it (rightly), but if it also benefits a non-free OS at the same time, he will oppose it if it's not needed for GNU.
Example: I ran across his article denouncing a standard for open device drivers. I was confused by this, and wrote him asking for clarification. After all, I thought that open source drivers for Windows users is a good idea, since they are the ones most in need of freedom. This sounded too much like "free the free and keep the slaves slaves". He replied and said precisely that: he didn't want open source drivers for Windows because that would benefit Windows.
Re:This clause was carved out for Motif (Score:2)
The thing is, Motif was never a very viable development tool for free software developers. You have to statically link, people on non-proprietary Unicen usually don't have the development libraries, etc. So, people could look the other way because there was never any real danger of it starting a trend.
Qt is viable. That it is Open Source isn't terribly meaningful, because the GPL doesn't mention Open Source in any way -- and it shouldn't, because the Open Source Definition is hardly a legally robust document.
Re:Yet another thing I've been waiting for... (Score:2)
Corel is cruising towards alot of other licensing issues, because their developers are not thinking things thru. They want to base their distribution of KDE, but as we're all seeing, that is problematic indeed, since libqt is not GPL compatible. This is certainly the first of several licensing issues Corel will get into, and they have noone to blame but themselves. They got lucky that the author of libapt thought that the exception was an acceptable one to make. The next time they may not be so lucky.
You sir, are a kook (Score:2)
Stop whining about how other people license their software. If you don't like the GPL, then don't use GPLd software. There are many people who want to ensure that their code is always free, and is never used in closed source software. That's their right; learn to respect it.
Sheesh. BSD license kooks. Go figure.
Re:Hang on, the situation has changed...? (Score:3)
Because the developers wrote the code. Therefore, they have the absolute right to dictate how that code may be used. If they chose to restrict its usage, that's their prerogative. As a user of the library, you have absolutely no rights beyond those which the developers were kind enough to grant you, since you did not actually write it.
Indeed (Score:2)
To me, it looks like this: RMS has defined the most stringent form of a sort of licensing known as 'free' or 'open', and it is not the actual code that is significant, it is the process of doing it. I don't intend to buy into the fallacy that I can't share unless everybody I work with shares with _me_... I can be dependent on lots of people, Apple, Adobe, whoever, and have no power or freedom with their code at all. That doesn't change the fact that _I!_ release free software- and, significantly, that I GPL it. This is the result: I may be dependent on other vendors, but in my software writing I deny them the use of what I've created unless they are ready to play by the same rules, and I share with anyone playing by the same rules as I am.
That's why I don't find it unusual or strange being a Mac OSS programmer, or mind the relative scarcity of other Mac OSS programmers. It's not about what's in it for _me_. It's not about me pretending to have the ability to extort other people to release and share code. I simply understand very clearly exactly WHO I'm willing to share with, and who I'm not- and the GPL is exactly what I need, even with its various faults.
It's not about whether I can force my whole environment to be nice- it's whether I can cooperate only with those ready to be nice, and just deal with the others in whatever way I must. The GPL gives me the power to discriminate in this manner. If someone wants me to support (by using) a piece of proprietary software, they have to convince me it's worth the price, and even then, they can't touch any of my stuff unless they do it on my terms. I am not the victim of proprietary code- if it breaks it breaks, nobody expects much of software nowadays. Proprietary code does not need a total war against it to succumb to entropy, it does that all by itself...
Motif, QT, proprietary libc's, etc.... (Score:3)
Actually, it was more meant for the proprietary libc's that came with the Un*x systems that GNU was bootstrapped on. When the Motif issue came about, people kind of looked the other way (RMS included), but it was an uncomfortable situation. Emacs (the quintessential RMS work) has never used Motif, even though the crufty widgets it used in lieu aren't great to work with (Xawe, I think).
Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but I distictly remember RMS stating the this exception was OK for use with Motif. And I'm certain that emacs is #ifdef'd for use with Motif, because I've built straight emacs linked against Motif before. There's a
[time taken to check] Yup... I'm right about Motif support, here's configure output from the latest emacs-20.4: [snip for brevity] The thing is, Motif was never a very viable development tool for free software developers. You have to statically link, people on non-proprietary Unicen usually don't have the development libraries, etc. So, people could look the other way because there was never any real danger of it starting a trend.
Qt is viable. That it is Open Source isn't terribly meaningful, because the GPL doesn't mention Open Source in any way -- and it shouldn't, because the Open Source Definition is hardly a legally robust document.
So, are you suggesting that RMS and his lawyers are going to draw a line in the sand and test the GPL in court here??? This seems not only dangerous but also an action with little gain. QT may not meet complete "Free Software" requirements as far as RMS and other total GPL proponents are concerned, but if the FSF decides to fight this issue out they better be ready to deal with compilation on proprietary UNIXen as well.
I think the most important point to make is that the enforcement of all of these licenses must be consistent across the board. If RMS, Linus, the GIMP developers, whoever, start playing games like "Well, you can derive from my source, but (s)he can't," just like how Sun's SCSL is structured, then we've denegrated the GPL and Free Software for all. It seems to me that if RMS includes support for Motif right in the latest emacs itself then GPL proponents really don't have a leg to stand on when claiming that QT and other GPL'd source can't be linked together; at least not if they want their argument to stay consistent.
Qt 2.x *is* DFSG-compliant (Score:2)
I'd just like to point out that this is only correct if you are talking about obsolete versions of Qt. Qt 2.x, which is the current released version, is licensed under the QPL, which *is* DFSG-compliant. Check out libqt2 2.0.2-0.1, which is *not* in non-free.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org]
I find it to be of great interest.. (Score:2)
..that the above post was not moderated down, but my response to it was (it was regarded as flamebait, specifically).
Just thought I'd throw away a little more karma just to point out how utterly clueless some moderators are, especially since this subthread wasn't even a flamewar until Jay became a part of it.
hehe (Score:3)
1) Its rag like, think newspaper
2) Think Women (bitching and moaning)
- Think Red (need I explain?)
-Think Commie (well duh)....
...I said it, now watch me get flamed... hehe =)
Re:Get a life... (Score:2)
You don't give a reason why you don't like Qt/QPL, so I can only assume that it's political. Get over it. Your operating system isn't a political party. You won't go to hell if you use KDE. Be your own person and make your own decisions without RMS telling you what to think.
The fact that you say you would "switch from Gnome in an instant" implies that you aren't 100% happy with Gnome, and that you see KDE as being better suited to your needs. Don't let the lack of a non-GNU library stop you. Jeez Louise!
Re:Suprise! (Score:2)
Furthermore, the clauses that keep GPL code out of proprietary products are the exact same clauses that keep them out of ANY OTHER FREE software product. The GPL was not designed to promote freedom, it was designed to promote the GNU project.
Re:Why you should use the LGPL for your next progr (Score:2)
I agree.
For example, suppose I develop a specialized mathematics program. If I release it under the LGPL, it is possible for Wolfram (for example) to rip out the interesting routines and make it into a library. They LGPL their changes to my program, then use that library in Mathematica without my consent or even mentioning that I wrote that code!
They can't do that, though -- your code is STILL under the LGPL, and because they've made changes to it they have to distribute their changed source. It's true that they've gotten the advantage of your library without their software being free, but at the same time they haven't done anything to hurt your library.
So nothing unexpected has happened -- and in fact, I see that as being VERY good. They will fix bugs in your library, and you'll be able to use the bugfixes. You have gained.
-Billy
Re:You sir, are a kook (Score:2)
I can do that with the QPL, but I still can't link it with GPL'd programs.
Special Dispensation (Score:2)
Well, the guy's got a point! His powers of offense are awesome.
Usually the phrase is rendered "one fell swoop," but in this case, "one foul swoop" seems more accurate anyhow. And the benefit of the doubt says it is the only clever turn of phrase in the post!
Cheers,
timothy