Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 14th Feb 2009 12:55 UTC
Google A major complaint about Google's Chrome web browser has been that so far, it is still not available on anything other than Windows. Google promised to deliver Chrome to Mac OS X and Linux as well, but as it turns out, this is a little harder than they anticipated, Ben Goodger, Google's Chrome interface lead, has explained in an email. It has also been revealed what toolkit the Linux version of Chrome will use: Gtk+.
Thread beginning with comment 348999
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

If anything, Qt development is moving to a more open model with LGPL license

So, what about all those years we were told that QT was more Free because it was GPL instead of LGPL? I think the move is good. But isn't there a fair amount of crow to be eaten on the QT side? I'd like to observe the eating. Assuming that's not under NDA, too.

Reply Parent Score: 2

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

So, what about all those years we were told that QT was more Free because it was GPL instead of LGPL?


Did anyone seriously believe that? ;-)

I think the move is good. But isn't there a fair amount of crow to be eaten on the QT side?

I don't really *know*, but I'd wager that it was not under LGPL because Trolltech was dependent of cash inflow in order to continue. This is no longer the case (Nokia can easily support Trolltech without another dime from Qt license revenues), and I don't assume the Trolltech chose GPL because of RMS-grade Free Software fanaticism. Quite on the contrary, since they were selling proprietary licenses at the same time.

Reply Parent Score: 2

leos Member since:
2005-09-21

"If anything, Qt development is moving to a more open model with LGPL license

So, what about all those years we were told that QT was more Free because it was GPL instead of LGPL?
"

GPL is more Free for the users, LGPL is more free for the developers. So it really depends how you look at it.

I think the move is good. But isn't there a fair amount of crow to be eaten on the QT side?


Why? If Qt had been LGPL from the start, Trolltech would have gone under years ago and we wouldn't have Qt anymore (at least not as advanced as it currently is). So you can't argue that their licensing model was a bad idea because it allowed them to continue putting resources into Qt development.

Now that Nokia doesn't depend on Qt license revenue to stay afloat, they can LGPL it to make it available to more people.

Reply Parent Score: 4

abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

If Qt had been LGPL from the start, Trolltech would have gone under years ago and we wouldn't have Qt anymore (at least not as advanced as it currently is).


That's speculation. If QT was LGPL from the start open source developers would have been working on it for years now and there is no telling what QT would look like. It might even be a better toolkit if Trolltech went under. No one really knows.

Reply Parent Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

GPL is more Free for the users, LGPL is more free for the developers. So it really depends how you look at it.

That rolls off the tongue nicely. But does it really mean anything?

GPL gives the copyright holder, and upstream authors in general, more control over what the downstream authors can do with the code. LGPL gives upstream less control over downstream. End users don't even need the source; They only care about binaries. So they don't really enter into it.

Edited 2009-02-15 01:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3