Linked by Andrew Youll on Sat 6th Aug 2005 08:30 UTC, submitted by tbutler
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 14570
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
Try reading. I've never said that I don't like Qt, but have said that the Qt license will cause problems for KDE in the long term.
I'd just like to point out that while I agree with most of what you've said in this thread, I see no reason why this has to be a problem for KDE in the long term. Multiple toolkits happily coexist on Windows and the Mac. Why can't the same be true on Linux? Only petty politics, not technical obstacles, keep us from full cross-desktop integration. Developers who insist on non-RAND libraries can just use GTK or something else, and those should be first-class apps on a KDE desktop (and the reverse). Developers who choose Qt can continue choosing Qt. Everybody's happy. The real question is, how do we get there?