Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Jul 2005 14:00 UTC, submitted by Timothy R. Butler
GNU, GPL, Open Source Tim Butler knew when he mentioned something negative about the GNU Project's General Public License (GPL), in his column on KDE last week, he would inevitably be accused of arguing the GPL was a bad license. What did not fit into that piece shall now be dealt with: is the GPL a bad license or is the issue he complained about something else?
Thread beginning with comment 3571
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: KDE vs. GNOME
by on Wed 13th Jul 2005 14:49 UTC

Member since:

> You cannot write a proprietary application using QT
> without buying a license from Trolltech. This is
> not so with Gnome/GTK+. That is what he is talking
> about.

Right, if you want to write propritary closed source applications using QT then it's true. But then again if you look beyond the license only. Then you will see that at the end these companies are saving a lot of money too.

a) QT is C++ thus you can rapidely write applications. This saves you a lot of time for application development. If you can save your time by 1/3 of the overall time that you would require to write the same with C using GTK+ then you already get the money in that you spent for the license.

b) A serious company would pull the license costs down to its customers, no problems with that. Assuming you pay 5 licenses to a fixed price for say 4000 USD (you know that you can deal with TrollTech here) then assuming you may sell 100 copies of that software you may be able to add 40 USD to the customers for license costs and another 55 USD for the product. Usually special software is written which even cost you a couple of thousand dollars. Serious software for science, molecular stuff, military, surgery, car companies, NASA and so on. People who rely on adequate technology.

c) You are getting a lot of support, good documents, guides and other important stuff from Trolltech included while purchasing that license. In case you have issues during programming you can hook up the phone and call up Trolltech who are willing to help you save a lot of time by answering all the questions.

d) You help the IT industry in europe because we depend on companies such as Trolltech. That company, besides some other companies are companies where many of us would really enjoy working for. SUSE, Trolltech, Novell, SUN, IBM and so on. We do these companies and their employees a big favor to help them promoting their products and help the IT industry to stay alive in the US as well as in EUROPE before the last company disappears to india. This should be your own interest. It could be your IT seat that could be reduced one day, because of your extreme views that helps no one.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: KDE vs. GNOME
by rm6990 on Wed 13th Jul 2005 15:01 in reply to "RE[2]: KDE vs. GNOME"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

This should be your own interest. It could be your IT seat that could be reduced one day, because of your extreme views that helps no one.

Lol buddy, chill out. Maybe you should take a second to read the rest of my comment. Or maybe the one I was responding to also. I never commented on which one was better. I was merely answering the question of someone who didn't understand the licensing issues. Do you have schitzophrenia or something? You seem to be really paranoid?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: KDE vs. GNOME
by youknowmewell on Wed 13th Jul 2005 15:11 in reply to "RE[2]: KDE vs. GNOME"
youknowmewell Member since:
2005-07-08

a) and d) are lame arguments. a) is subjective and can start a whole flamewar in itself, and d) is just illogical given the whole reason behind having developers pay to make closed-source apps. It helps Trolltech, yes, but it would help the developers even more to not have to pay at all to make a closed-source app. That is to say, d) hinges on the betterment of companies so as to help the European economy, but doesn't it help more when a company doesn't have to pay for their tools, thereby not needing to pass the cost onto the customer? I'm not saying that it is illegitimate for Trolltech to ask for money, but I think your attempts at playing on patriotism are flawed.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: KDE vs. GNOME
by on Wed 13th Jul 2005 17:13 in reply to "RE[2]: KDE vs. GNOME"
Member since:

a) QT is C++ thus you can rapidely write applications.

For GNOME we have GTKmm (http://www.gtkmm.org(), an interface to GTK+ with a modern C++ API. It's written in modern standard C++. QT on the other hand looks as if it was written in pre-standard C++ days. QT even requires extensions to GCC to compile. If you're going to write C++ why not choose something modern and stable as GTKmm ? It's a dream for any C++ programmers.

If you want to rapidly write applications you'd be much better off with Haskell (http://haskell.org) and gtk2hs (http://haskell.org/gtk2hs/). That should increase your productivity (once you learn Haskell that is) by 9-10 times.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: KDE vs. GNOME
by anda_skoa on Wed 13th Jul 2005 17:20 in reply to "RE[3]: KDE vs. GNOME"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

QT even requires extensions to GCC to compile

This is either not true or all Linux distributions patch their GCC for Qt compatability, because I never had to patch GCC myself and still can compiler Qt and Qt based applications.

Actually I have compiler Qt and Qt based application with other compilers as well, where it is very unlikely that the compiler vendor has added any extension for Qt, for example Intel's icc and Microsofts cl.

Therefore I can only assume that your claim is not based on facts.

Reply Parent Score: 1