"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!
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
The person you're responding to wasn't trolling at all. You don't have a legitimate concern.
Unfortunately, you didn't provide me any proof or references to your claim that GPL + LGPL != GPL for libraries. If that was the case, then I could write an LGPL library that merely links to a GPL library and thereby circumvent the GPL anytime I wanted to use one in proprietary software. In fact, by the same conclusion you have, someone could write an LGPL stub for the Qt library and thereby use it freely in a commercial application.
Do you see why I'm concerned?
Member since:2006-01-09
The person you're responding to wasn't trolling at all. You don't have a legitimate concern.
Unfortunately, you didn't provide me any proof or references to your claim that GPL + LGPL != GPL for libraries. If that was the case, then I could write an LGPL library that merely links to a GPL library and thereby circumvent the GPL anytime I wanted to use one in proprietary software. In fact, by the same conclusion you have, someone could write an LGPL stub for the Qt library and thereby use it freely in a commercial application.
Do you see why I'm concerned?
I'm not sure if I understand what exactly you're trying to convey here so I will try to explain what the parent poster is saying.
The KDE libraries are LGPL because they they are just that: libraries. In order to use its functionality, your average KDE/QT application must link to it and not the other way around. And since it doesn't draw widgets nor anything like that (probably low level stuff that makes KDE work, I guess), it is perfectly clear of Qt code. The LGPL was created in order to allow commercial development using FOSS libraries. The catch here is that if you make improvements to the library itself, those changes have to be made available to everybody else. But your application can remain closed.
In fact, it has been said that you can develop applications that takes advantage of KDE features provided by these libraries even if you don't use Qt.
Basically, what that means is that LGPL/BSD/Closed source app + GPL lib = GPL app while LGPL/BSD/Closed source app + LGPL lib = remains the same license.
So, answering your rhetoric question, I don't think that it's possible to "hijack" Qt into a closed source application the way you described. But it is perfectly acceptable to write a closed source application that links to LGPL library such as KDE libs. In fact, this is desirable as it would allow ISVs to create commercial offerings tightly integrated to KDE.
Member since:
2005-07-06
is that the supposed LGPL license of somehow makes it so that commercial apps can link against them.
Yep. kdelibs is LGPLed. The rest of KDE is released under the GPL.
I won't dispute they as long as they're linking against versions of the KDE libraries built against the version of Qt they licensed.
Bollocks. Doesn't matter. The licenses are compatible.
However, if you can explain to me in exact legal terms how an LGPL library + a GPL library does NOT equal a GPL library.
Because they're two separate pieces of software? A LGPL component (kdelibs) can use a GPL component (Qt - the two LGPL and GPL licenses are compatible) and GPLed and other licensed components can use that LGPL component (kdelibs). Not rocket science. That's what the LGPL is for......
In that case, since Linux distributions ship Qt as GPL and link the KDE libraries against that GPL library, then the KDE libraries are effectively GPL'd as shipped.
No, kdelibs is not GPLed. It is LGPLed, and it can use a GPLed Qt component because the LGPL and GPL are compatible licenses. Qt is also dual licensed.
Now, if you can explain to me that the KDE libraries do not depend on or use or link against the Qt libraries
Right, so the root of the problem is that you don't want KDE to use Qt at all? Glad we got that sorted.
Now, please, stop trolling and explain this instead of dismissing me as a troll, instead of as a free software and commercial developer with a legitimate concern!
The person you're responding to wasn't trolling at all. You don't have a legitimate concern.