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 3594
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: KDE vs. GNOME
by on Wed 13th Jul 2005 15:19 UTC

Member since:

Mikah (or Micah), you know that the vast majority of us don't really care for the licensing issue. The amount of comments I read from people who do seem have an issue with it ended up with my conclusion that those people are simply GNOME fanboys who have nothing better to do with their time to bash about non-existing issues. I already saw in the last OSN Tim Buttler report that most arguments were stirred up by GNOMER's.

Look not everyone has an issue with it, the majority of people don't even care. All they want is to use a working functional and good desktop that KDE offers. This is all about politics and is in no way proven to be a real issue or not. At the end it's not you ordinary users who tell a company what to pay their money for or what not. They decide what's better for them and not what is better for you.

Go and use GTK+ if you think it's better. This still don't give you access to either Acrobat reader, VMWare and whatever. You still end up with propritary binaries that you can't compile on your own since they don't permitt you to have the sources. It's a similar case on both sites. If someone wants to keep their property closed then you can't avoid it.

Reply Score: 0