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 14690
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:
2005-07-06
Most users don't care about toolkits,
They do when they see the quality of the software.
its more a vendors issue. RedHat, Sun, and Novell
For reasons already stated, scrub Novell from your list of companies. Novell invest actively in Qt, because it's the only toolkit they use on their paying products. Red Hat are the only vendors who heavily invest in GTK and write large amounts of configuration tools and software with it for their products.
But once again, the LSB's position is that they shouldn't be discriminatory towards proprietary ISVs which the Qt dual-license is.
Not be descriminatory towards proprietary ISVs.....? Trolltech is a proprietary ISV, and they have a far larger market on desktop Linux than all of these totally mythical ISVs the LSB and others think exist. They simply don't exist.
The really funny thing is that people want to promote proprietary development for nothing, but the very same people whinge, whine and stamp their feet when a piece of software is not only not open sourced but doesn't allow them to develop on top of it for nothing! It is a circle that simply will not complete.