Linked by Andrew Youll on Fri 19th Aug 2005 21:13 UTC, submitted by tbutler
Just over a year ago, Tim Butler wrote an article which outlined why he thought the GNOME Project was clearly the free software desktop project with the best vision of the future. KDE's Appeal Project, which has been brewing for some time now, looks to a different set of issues that need solving and has some very smart minds at work on solving those problems. In a few words, KDE's got some of "that vision thing" too, according to Tim.
Thread beginning with comment 21188
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.
Member since:
2005-07-07
"That's hilarious. Do you even realize that Qt is not the only toolkit for linux. There's this other toolkit called gtk+. Maybe you've heard of it. The LSB won't include Qt because there are strings attached. Plain and simple."
Calling the GPL, the licence at the very heart of linux and gnu software, "a string" and attempting to cast a negative light on that is borderline trolling. And IMHO it actually serves to make the LSB less relevant, and is an asthma to the free software movement. Here is 'the page' with the info on the 'LSB / QT issue': http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/ideas/issues/libqt/ . And yes, 'the issue' is that it is a library that is GPLed.
It makes the LSB less relevant when you don't include the toolkit that forms the basis of the software that runs on 1/2 of free desktops as their primary desktop environment. (The same goes for Fd.o...) I'm not a paranoid nut- I don't think that these orgs are actively hostile to KDE for the most part. It's just that there is a very real, occasionally justified, BUT INCREASINGLY justified notion that these are GNOME playgrounds... Posts like yours don't help.
This GPL as "a string" argument actually harms the free software movement. By saying, 'We don't do GPLed libraries', the LSB is basically saying to individuals / companies that you shouldn't make GPLed libs because other people can't use them in an attempt to make a buck. OK, that's fine- BUT:
1) Why the hell should a company give away a product for free so another company can make a profit selling closed software with it?
2) Why the hell should an independent developer make a library in their free time so other people can make money from it?
In both cases it's fine if people want to do that, but you can't blame them if they don't... and there are many people that see no incentive in encouraging the development of non-GPLed software. Go ahead, scream, "ZEALOT". Feel Better? Good.
Here's why only the zealots matter: All closed non-free software development is caged by a need to maximize profit and to find the sweet spot when it comes faster, better, cheaper. They don't care about free software, they only care about a free lunch. These firms will be the first to move along when they find something that fits their needs better, or when they receive incentives that they can't refuse. The only value in closed developers is in the code the community can extract from them when they are developing on 'free' platforms.
At the end of the day the 'zealots' will still be here. If the 'zealots' are the ones that actually care about free software, then sign me up. I'm a 'zealot', and I don't give a rat's arse about any firm's 'need' to extract profit from the community for free...