There is a controversy in the Linux world. It doesn't have to do with Microsoft, or anything overtly technical. It may seem, to the outsider, the open source equivalent of the question, "Boxers or briefs?" But it's much more serious than that. More here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-08-15
> If Qt would have been LGPL from the beginning today we > would probably have one supirior toolkit and less
> problems (all the Gtk+ <-> Qt compatibilty/usability
> issues). But so Qt has split the community and the
> development power. First because it was non-free and
> than because it devides between free software
> developers and non-free software developers.
If Qt were LGPL from the beginning, there would be no more professional development of Qt, and there would be no GNOME as well.
Member since:2005-07-15
>If Qt were LGPL from the beginning, there would be no more professional development of Qt, and there would be no GNOME as well.
As long as you don't explain your conclusion i can't response to it. But i would say that it is (at least in this general statement) false.
Edited 2007-12-26 18:22
Member since:2005-07-07
Read the comment below, I believe this links to it: http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=19086&comment_id=293332
I think it is very true...
Member since:2005-07-13
The point of the Lesser GPL license is to provide a compromise for certain applications or libraries that don't otherwise offer a compelling enough advantage over non-free/non-GPL alternatives. It is discouraged by the FSF unless otherwise necessary.
Gtk relies on LGPL for acceptance because the very implication is that basically nobody would pay a license fee to use it. Qt can utilize the GPL (as well as a variety of other recognized OSS licenses) because if offers enough value that Trolltech still earns millions in license fees for commercial usage. That simple fact speaks volumes.
Member since:
2005-07-15
>Personally, I want MORE open source, not less.
I want more Free Software too.
But that's not necessary the answer of the question "GPL or LGPL?"
It can be good to use the GPL for single libraries like described here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
But i think a GUI toolkit is a classic example for the LGPL case. A GUI toolkit is as essential as a simple c-library because today most programs will come with a GUI.
What would happen if the glibc would be GPL? All non-free software companies would have used a different c-library and all distribution would ship this library at least as addition to the glibc. So this wouldn't increase the number of free software packages on you system but the number of non-free packages. At the same time the non-free software developer wouldn't put their efforts into the glibc but in their own c-library. This would mean less developers for the free software c-library.
At the end you would only lose. Less developers for the glibc and one additional non-free package. So it was and still is good that glibc is LGPL and the same is IMHO true for a GUI toolkit because today it is as important as a c-library.
If Qt would have been LGPL from the beginning today we would probably have one supirior toolkit and less problems (all the Gtk+ <-> Qt compatibilty/usability issues). But so Qt has split the community and the development power. First because it was non-free and than because it devides between free software developers and non-free software developers.
Edited 2007-12-26 18:01