KDE 3.4.2 is the second maintenance release which provides corrections of problems reported using the KDE bug tracking system and greatly enhanced support for existing translations and new translations. Changelog and download.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:I know what proprietary software is. And QT certainly is proprietary. This is so clearly true that you have to wonder about anyone who tries to make the opposite case. Now, QT is a great toolkit, and I like it technically. But, I don't want any important components to depend on it. As nice as JDE is, I use Gnome mostly because of the licensing issues.
KDE does not work well at 800 by 600 resolution, either and that has some effect on my decision. But, it is mostly licensing that drives me.
Member since:2005-07-07
> I know what proprietary software is. And QT certainly is proprietary.
> This is so clearly true that you have to wonder about anyone who tries to make the opposite case.
Now GPL software (Qt) is proprietary? You think anyone here will believe you? Most stupid troll ever.
Member since:
2005-07-06
The proprietary Qt toolkit could never be in the standard because there are too many strings attached.
If there are any strings attached, then that is for an ISV or a developer to decide - not the LSB.
http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/ideas/issues/libqt/
That page is irrelevant because it contains many, many inaccuracies that need to be corrected. The mailing list postings are a great embarrassment to the LSB.
Don't just repeat the party line of the LSB, because they've shown they don't have the first clue about how Qt is actually licensed. Their comments really are an embarrassment to what is supposed to be a professional organisation.
The proprietary Qt toolkit...
Do you know what proprietary software actually is? If you think Qt is proprietary software you shouldn't be commenting.
And nope, the linux kernel and end-user GPL apps don't have strings attached so you can forget that talking point.
You really don't have the first clue what you're talking about. With the Linux kernel it is GPL'd because Linus did not want people going off and making proprietary drivers and extensions to the kernel whenever they felt like it. That has been a spectacular success. There are strings attached, and obligations, to fulfil with GPL'd software but they are sensible ones.
In terms of Qt, since it is GPL'd, you can simply treat it as any other piece of GPL'd software. Should an ISV or a developer choose to go the commercial license route that's a decision for people in the real world to make, not fanboys at the LSB. It really makes no difference to the LSB at all. That's exactly the pattern of why Unix failed in the 80s and 90s.