Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th May 2006 19:54 UTC
GTK+ GTK+ 2.9.0 has been released. This is the first development release leading up to GTK+ 2.10. For completeness: "GTK+ is a multi-platform toolkit for creating graphical user interfaces. Offering a complete set of widgets, GTK+ is suitable for projects ranging from small one-off tools to complete application suites."
Thread beginning with comment 121502
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Firefox's Choice
by tmack on Fri 5th May 2006 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Firefox's Choice"
tmack
Member since:
2006-04-11

QT is GPL'd, so Mozilla would have to GPL any of their software that uses QT.

GTK+ is LGPL'd, which means as long as GTK+ is not statically linked into Mozilla, Mozilla can use whatever license it wants.

This is the same reason why Eclipse/SWT doesn't have a QT-port, why there's not official WxWidgets/QT port, etc.

GPL is bad for windowing tool kits.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Firefox's Choice
by kaiwai on Sat 6th May 2006 02:20 in reply to "RE[3]: Firefox's Choice"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

QT is GPL'd, so Mozilla would have to GPL any of their software that uses QT.

Absolutely, 100% incorrect; The licence for which Qt is licenced under is this; you either pay Trolltech for a commercial licence OR you release your application under GPL.

Also, when Mozilla was first released, it wasn't released under the GPL until later on; IIRC, its released under three licences.

As for their choice of GTK - It probably had to do more to do with the fact that the programmers are Netscape were familar with Motif, and wanted somethign that was easier to migrate to rather than something radically different.

As for Qt and Gecko, IMHO ultimately KDE programmers aren't to worried as eventually you'll see a split between Firefox/Thunderbird and the underlying 'core' so that you can download the 'core' seperately, and embed it easily rather than the situation now, where, for example, if on were to compile Epiphany, one needs to download the whole source etc. which is a long process, rather than simply just downloading the core components, and work up from there.

In the end, personally, KDE is far better off sticking with their own KHTML/KJS implementation, which is a lot cleaner, compact and efficient that the Mozilla core is right now - hopefully once Objective-C++ is accepted into the mainline of GNU-GCC, we'll see alot more code sharing between webcore and KHTML, as the need to translate between Objective-C++ and regular C++ would be non-existant.

Edited 2006-05-06 02:28

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Firefox's Choice
by zerblat on Sat 6th May 2006 03:55 in reply to "RE[4]: Firefox's Choice"
zerblat Member since:
2005-07-06

The licence for which Qt is licenced under is this; you either pay Trolltech for a commercial licence OR you release your application under GPL.

Which would mean either GPL everything or anyone wanting to work on Mozilla would need to buy a commercial Qt license (and they're not cheap).

But then, it's not true. You have a third option: the QPL, which permits you to use Qt with any open-source license.

Then again, AFAIK, Qt wasn't open source at all at the time the Netscape source code was first released, so the whole point is moot.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Firefox's Choice
by binarycrusader on Sat 6th May 2006 04:47 in reply to "RE[4]: Firefox's Choice"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Absolutely, 100% incorrect; The licence for which Qt is licenced under is this; you either pay Trolltech for a commercial licence OR you release your application under GPL.

Actually, you can also use Qt under the QPL ;) So that's wrong too ;)

Also, when Mozilla was first released, it wasn't released under the GPL until later on; IIRC, its released under three licences.

The source code to Mozilla may be released under the GPL, but official binary builds from Mozilla.org are not. Read the EULA that accompanies it ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Firefox's Choice
by segedunum on Sat 6th May 2006 14:35 in reply to "RE[3]: Firefox's Choice"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't know who modded you up, but that's pretty uninformed:

QT is GPL'd, so Mozilla would have to GPL any of their software that uses QT.

Wrong. In order to use GPLed software you need to be using a GPL compatible license (LGPL etc.), but you're still wrong about Mozilla even then. It uses a MPL/GPL/LGPL triple licensing scheme.

If you're going to try and comment on stuff like this, please, do some Googling. It's amazing what you can turn up.

This is the same reason why Eclipse/SWT doesn't have a QT-port

If Eclipse used a GPL compatible license then they could, and there is no reason in the whole wide world why they can't. The reason why there is always talk of a Qt Eclipse port, and many people within Eclipse are actually motivated to do it, is because GTK Eclipse sucks like a Hoover. Eclipse, despite talk of it being used for cross platform development, is still very much geared to running on Windows.

However, if you have enough money to spend on Webshpere then you will see that a Qt port of Eclipse actually exists - it's just that IBM pays a fair bit of money for it. It must be good for something...

why there's not official WxWidgets

Don't see a problem with a wxWidgets port. There's just no interest.

GPL is bad for windowing tool kits.

On the other hand it's good for open source projects and for creating all that free software we all know and love, ensuring that code goes back in.

It's also good for companies who want to dual license and to keep on improving their toolkits so people can actually create software that works. With a healthy respect for GPL compatibility you can actually do anything you want if you wanted to. Even porting GTK to KDE in a full manner, and using GTK, is totally possible.

I know people always want to dredge up lots of licensing problems for their own agendas, but honestly, they just don't exist.

Reply Parent Score: 3