Linked by Andrew Youll on Sat 6th Aug 2005 08:30 UTC, submitted by tbutler
Qt In a series of articles (part I, part II) during the month of July, OfB's Timothy R. Butler explained why he felt that KDE needed to move beyond the Qt toolkit it uses as a foundation. In that series, he asserted that the licensing of Qt is becoming a stumbling block to the desktop's adoption. Eric Laffoon, the project lead for KDE's Kdewebdev module, takes exception to Butler's arguments and makes the case for his view on the issue of Qt at OfB.biz.
Thread beginning with comment 14549
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Freedom of choice
by Morty on Sat 6th Aug 2005 23:18 UTC
Morty
Member since:
2005-07-06

Why do you keep giving that stupid link to that political nonsens over at LSB. It has time after time, and even on their mailinglist, shown why they are mistaken. Both their reasoning and their errornous interpretation of the QT license. Some of them still insist you have to pay royalties for commercial Qt usage. Since they have no valid arguments, neither technical or based on licensing issues it's pure politics.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Freedom of choice
by Lumbergh on Sat 6th Aug 2005 23:43 in reply to "RE[2]: Freedom of choice"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

Wrong morty. The reason is very simple and logical. The qt license discriminates unlike gtk+ and LSB has taken a position that they're not going to discriminate against closed-source companies and that any library that has string attached like qt will not be in the LSB.

And you should think before you type because the GPL is all politics. Go read the FAQ.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Freedom of choice
by on Sat 6th Aug 2005 23:56 in reply to "RE[3]: Freedom of choice"
Member since:

Wrong morty. The reason is very simple and logical. The qt license discriminates unlike gtk+ and LSB has taken a position that they're not going to discriminate against closed-source companies and that any library that has string attached like qt will not be in the LSB.

Exactly. Open standards in the free and open source software world so far are *NOT* based on RAND ("reasonable and non-discriminatory") terms - remember, this is one of the things we keep harping on Microsoft about, trying to push RAND standards through standards groups like the IETF. The Open Group / LSB isn't going to accept RAND, they're going for completely royalty-free no-strings-attached -- which means they can't throw Qt in there. Period.

That's what this discussion is about. But everytime it comes up, some KDE advocates who clearly don't understand the issues turn it into a huge war and trollfest. (Not to pick on KDE, there are plenty of Gnome advocates who troll on other stupid topics.) Folks, it is what it is! Use whatever toolkit you want, under whatever terms you like. That's your choice. But please, don't bitch and moan and whine about a Gnome conspiracy everytime the licensing terms of Qt causes somebody a problem. Just because LSB has a problem, doesn't mean you have to have a problem - nor does it mean that LSB is wrong (I happen to think they are 100% correct, and any other position would be hypocritical and represent a huge break in open standards goals). Use Qt in your GPL or commercial development to your heart's content, nobody is stopping you!

People bitch and moan because they still believe this is a winner-take-all proposition. It isn't. Let standards groups bless an LGPL toolkit. Let desktop projects choose whichever toolkit they wish, LGPL or GPL or otherwise. Let application authors choose what they wish. What we need are baseline technologies and integration so that it just doesn't matter to the end user what toolkit you use, because frankly they don't give a damn anyway. GTK+ apps should be first-class apps on a KDE desktop, and KDE or Qt apps should be first-class apps on a Gnome desktop. Put the politics and whining aside, use what you like, and let's move forward with real technical solutions to technical problems.

Reply Parent Score: 0