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 3631
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Dark_Knight on Wed 13th Jul 2005 16:09 UTC in reply to "KDE vs. GNOME"
Member since:

Not everything in the Linux community is intended to be free. In the Linux community there are applications that are not using the GNU/GPL which are strictly commercial and there are those that do use the license. Most Linux users including developers are aware of that fact so it shouldn't surprize anyone that the QT creator would want some financial compensation for their work.

As for the comment regarding developers dropping KDE in favor for Gnome I'd like to know where? If anything it's more likely the reverse. SuSE Linux has always been pro KDE even though it comes with Gnome as an option. The reason I'd say it's a pro KDE distribution is for two reasons 1. The default installation is KDE, not Gnome. 2. There are no updated YaST Sources available for Gnome but there are several mirrors for KDE. Both points are more likely a Novell decision due to consumer feedback (feedback form on the Novell site). This is similar to Mandriva who also leans more toward KDE and there's been reports in the past of other developers who had issues with compiling/packaging Gnome for their distribution.

Reply Parent Score: 1