Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 24th Apr 2006 20:26 UTC, submitted by elsewhere
Linux "The Free Standards Group will unveil Linux Standard Base 3.1, the first LSB version to include explicit Linux desktop application support, April 25 at the Desktop Linux Summit in San Diego. The standard has already been endorsed by Linux leaders Red Hat and Novell, along with other major Linux players such as AMD, Asianux, CA, Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, Mandriva, RealNetworks, Red Flag, and Turbolinux, according to the FSG."
Thread beginning with comment 117870
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Uh oh
by youknowmewell on Mon 24th Apr 2006 21:49 UTC
youknowmewell
Member since:
2005-07-08

'Because LSB 3.1 is a codification of what the major Linux distributors are already doing, Zemlin also noted, this latest version of the standard includes Trolltech's GPLed Qt C++ libraries. At one time there had been a great deal of resistance to the use of Qt in Linux and KDE. Even now, after the matter was settled in 2000 to everyone's satisfaction, some people still think that Qt's licensing terms make it in some way incompatible with Linux. As Zemlin observed, though, "We standardize what the major distributions are shipping and all the major distributions are shipping Qt."'

What does this mean for distros like Ubuntu?

'"LSB-compliance is very important for Ubuntu," said Mark Shuttleworth, Ubuntu's main backer, in a statement. "We believe that Linux offers the world freedom of choice, freedom to innovate, and freedom to localize. The Linux Standard Base is a crucial enabler of those freedoms, creating confidence in the standardization of the core platform while still preserving the ability of the platform to evolve and improve."'

Interesting. Does Ubuntu normally ship the QT libraries? Did past LSB standards include GNOME libraries?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Uh oh
by leos on Mon 24th Apr 2006 22:44 in reply to "Uh oh"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Does Ubuntu normally ship the QT libraries?

Yes. At least, they're on the CD, I'm not sure if they're installed by default. For Kubuntu, they obviously are installed by default.

I don't think that past LSB standards included Gnome libraries, but they did include the GTK libs which was a sticking point for many people. Just goes to show that you can't just make up an arbitrary standard and expect people to follow it. Good to see that they came to their senses.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Uh oh
by binarycrusader on Tue 25th Apr 2006 02:13 in reply to "RE: Uh oh"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Good to see that they came to their senses.

To accept this statement as truth would somehow imply that they had lost them to begin with. The main sticking point with Qt is still its licensing. I don't think many people will dispute its technical prowess (myself included). However, if Linux distributions are to succeed long term, they need to be friendlier to commercial software (this includes games and drivers!!!).

Having a toolkit like Qt as a standard will be great for "free software," but toolkits like Gtk with licensing friendly to businesses of all sizes, are still needed as long as Qt remains GPL only (GPL only in the sense that you have to pay for it if you want *any* other licensing terms -- don't nitpick ;) ). I have no problem with Qt being GPL only, and it being part of the LSB standard, as long as toolkits like Gtk continue to be part of the LSB as well.

Licensing fees for the development of software, using standard platform SDKs, are draconian in my opinion. The two mainstream software platforms that make up 98% of the desktop market both have completely royalty and licensing fee free platform SDKs (Windows and OS X). Linux needs to continue to develop equivalent, standardized SDKs that share these same terms. Not all applications can be expected to be open source.

This is why I believe that KDE will not be embraced by commercial applications long term. I think that long term the GNOME desktop will see more commercial support than KDE, as many one man entrprenuers and small businesses will refuse to pay the "trolltech tax."

Now before you paint me as a troll, let me be the first to say that I think that Qt makes a great toolkit for free software. I personally have used it to build a project or two, and found the documentation and toolkit itself to be wonderful. I also do not criticize Trolltech for wanting to charge money for their product. The only thing I'm criticizing is the mindset of those who would exclude commercial development from small developers on the Linux platform by closed-minded forceful adoptions of GPL only libraries like Qt.

I can only hope that future desktop integration libraries will allow small application developers to release software that will help the Linux platform thrive, while keeping both the KDE and GNOME "camps" happy.

Edited 2006-04-25 02:23

Reply Parent Score: 5