Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Jan 2009 09:54 UTC, submitted by Almar
Qt After Nokia purchsed Trolltech last year, doubts arose about how Nokia would handle the dual licensing model of Qt, the advanced cross-platform toolkit which lies at the base of the KDE Free software desktop. As it turns out, these doubts were unfounded, as Nokia today announced it's going to add the LGPL to Qt's licensing model, starting with Qt 4.5.
Thread beginning with comment 343424
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Fantastic!
by chekr on Wed 14th Jan 2009 10:05 UTC
chekr
Member since:
2005-11-05

This is fantastic news!

Hopefully now the whole basis of competition between QT & GTK will be on merit...not a rabid debate of licensing ideology ;)

RE: Fantastic!
by kelvin on Wed 14th Jan 2009 10:40 in reply to "Fantastic!"
kelvin Member since:
2005-07-06

Indeed! This is excellent news. At the very least, it will allow GTK+ to use Qt code. Hopefully it'll be the beginning of a more unified desktop "plumbing".

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3

RE[2]: Fantastic!
by anarxia on Wed 14th Jan 2009 12:00 in reply to "RE: Fantastic!"
anarxia Member since:
2006-06-02

I doubt that GTK+ will use Qt code since GTK+ does not use C++ at all.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3

RE: Fantastic!
by Lobotomik on Wed 14th Jan 2009 10:42 in reply to "Fantastic!"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

I believe Free software is a great thing: one of the greatest feats of human engineering, with millions of hours of work that are being donated to humanity for free, forever. That can only be good.

However, I don't buy into Stallman's idea that software *has* to be free. It is nice to write a book and donate it to the world, but hardly anybody argues that all literature should be free and that authors should never receive any money in return. There has to be a way for those that want to monetize their work for whatever reason they find, and they should be reasonably free to decide how to do it.

With Trolltechs previous model, writing closed-source software was only possible by paying A LOT of money per programmer seat, which not only was only feasible for large companies, but also got into the hot waters of license management. Suits them right, many would say, for pushing the closed-software ecosystem.

Of course this was fully within Trolltech's rights. They have the same right as anyone else to cash on their work, and they even provided a faultless way for free software writers to use it. Those who defend that model say the price was worth it, because you got great tech support. Well, then I'm sure that tech support business is not going to be any worse now.


I'm sure, though, that this was a barrier for many software writers that Nokia has, extremely generously, removed. This puts Qt squarely against GTK+ in the eyes of any company that writes software, not pushing it anymore to decide in square one whether all or part or none of their software is going to be open or closed.

I think this is going to be very good for Qt/KDE, and the GTK+/Gnome camp will have to put a lot more wood in the furnace to keep the competition going, which should also be good. So let competition begin! Or rather, let the next round of competition begin!

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 6

RE[2]: Fantastic!
by dagw on Wed 14th Jan 2009 11:02 in reply to "RE: Fantastic!"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't buy into Stallman's idea that software *has* to be free.

Stallman never claimed that software "has to be free". He has never made any statement (that I'm aware of) to the effect that non-free software should somehow be outlawed or illegal. All he has said is that, for the general good, software *should* be free. And that people on the whole would be better off if the software they used was free. Also he says that he personally does not want to use any software that he doesn't consider free, and that he will personally work to make as much software as possible available under a license he agrees with. This is all very different stating that software "has to" be free.

There has to be a way for those that want to monetize their work for whatever reason they find, and they should be reasonably free to decide how to do it.

Stallman probably wouldn't disagree with any of that.
I disagree with much of what Stallman says, but I don't think anybody wins by mis-representing his ideas.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 11

RE[2]: Fantastic!
by wannabe geek on Wed 14th Jan 2009 17:27 in reply to "RE: Fantastic!"
wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27



However, I don't buy into Stallman's idea that software *has* to be free. It is nice to write a book and donate it to the world, but hardly anybody argues that all literature should be free and that authors should never receive any money in return. There has to be a way for those that want to monetize their work for whatever reason they find, and they should be reasonably free to decide how to do it.



Well, I don't agree that "hardly anyone" is against intellectual property in all its forms. Just search "against intellectual property" in Google. That's not the same as saying that authors should never receive any money in return. In a society of free knowledge, intellectual production is a service and the market determines its price. Several new ways of collective bargaining would be developed, which are not seen today because of the overwhelming competition of IP-based mechanisms.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3