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 3592
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It's crystal clear: he has issues with KDE
by jbauer on Wed 13th Jul 2005 15:18 UTC
Member since:

It's clear he was not attacking GPL, but the KDE project. This time, is more evident than ever. KDE is so alive and is doing so well that we must expect more of these kinds of FUD attacks in the future.

Go, KDE!

Reply Score: 1

Dark_Knight Member since:

Article quote: "Next week, after casting some doubt on KDE the past two weeks, Iíll explain why I am not the GNOME user I have been presumed to be."

I don't believe the author was intending to attack the KDE community or Trolltech specifically. Though he could of done a better job writing the article by explaining what distributions, developers and companies like the QT license. When I compare the applications written for KDE vs Gnome there appears far more available for KDE users and in some cases better applications (ie: Amarok). Not every Linux developer can afford the QT license but there are a lot that can and do opt for QT over GTK.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Member since:

The GPL is a REALLY screwed license but ,that said, I really prefer KDE over GNOME any day. The article seems to be attacking Trolltech for finding a way to make moneoy off the GPL limitations. As I see it this is very consistent: KDE is GPL'd so you cannot complain to Trolltech for being consistent.<BR>
Has anyone considered porting KDE to OpenLook's xview? I don't so.

Reply Parent Score: 0