Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th Apr 2006 13:59 UTC
Gnome "Despite the head start that KDE enjoyed, the large number of KDE users and developers, and Linus Torvalds personally endorsing KDE, GNOME has won the desktop environment battle. The final victory came with the third piece of a corporate trifecta, giving GNOME the official nod from Red Hat, Sun Microsystems, and finally Novell. The question is, will the triumph of GNOME lead to the rise or downfall of the Linux desktop?" Run Forrest! Run!
Thread beginning with comment 119196
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: sounds biased to me
by antonis00 on Fri 28th Apr 2006 18:17 UTC in reply to "sounds biased to me"
Member since:

"It's true that KDE suffers because of licensing issues..."

KDE does NOT suffer from ANY licensing issues. KDE and QT is GPLed software.

Edited 2006-04-28 18:18

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: sounds biased to me
by jaykayess on Fri 28th Apr 2006 18:21 in reply to "RE: sounds biased to me"
jaykayess Member since:

Well, it suffers because of popular misconceptions, then. And because non-GPL development requires a paid Qt license. (I'm a KDE user; definitely not trying to slight the big K here.)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: sounds biased to me
by buff on Fri 28th Apr 2006 18:26 in reply to "RE: sounds biased to me"
buff Member since:

KDE does Not suffer from ANY licensing issues...

Well, not exactly. Free applications written using QT widgets don't require a license but commercial applications do require one.

I could also make one suggestion to the poster: if you are going to put things in caps indicating you are yelling correct information you might want to actually *read* the license first.

Directly from KDE's site:
...the use of the KDE libraries is free of charge for development of commercial applications. However, the KDE libraries rely on the Qt library. Thus you will probably need to obtain a license of Qt from Trolltech.

Please, be aware of the advantage that an investment in Qt licenses brings, as it won't be limited to commercial KDE development, but it will also allow general commercial Qt development and will eventually enable multi-platform software development.

However, developing free software applications for KDE does not require a commercial Qt license.

Edited 2006-04-28 18:28

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: sounds biased to me
by antonis00 on Fri 28th Apr 2006 18:49 in reply to "RE[2]: sounds biased to me"
antonis00 Member since:

And why should I care as a KDE user and free (as in freedom) software supporter if commercial applications using QT require a license?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: sounds biased to me
by Symgeosis on Sat 29th Apr 2006 16:51 in reply to "RE: sounds biased to me"
Symgeosis Member since:

The fact that it is GPL is the issue. While the GPL is a great licence, it is rather restrictive. Very few people, corporations, or whoever likes to feel chained by a licence.

This isn't to say that the GPL doesn't have it's place or that I disagree with QT using the GPL (it is their choice, after all) but that because QT uses a relatively restrictive licence versus a rather relaxed one (such as the LGPL or BSD licences) it does suffer from licencing issues that will disqualify it for use from a larger potential developer base.

Edited 2006-04-29 16:53

Reply Parent Score: 1