[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: KDE vs Gnome
[ I have to preface this with one statement... I had hoped to keep
what I said non-inflamatory enough not to start a flamefest on the
list. I obviously didn't succeed. My apologies. I'll try harder
next time. :-) ]
Chris Tessone said:
> Oh, come on, Steven! Firstly, I can't understand how you people can
> sit and take shots at Stallman when you're getting his views
> secondhand and not really trying to understand them. _Pragmatic
> idealism_, folks.
I've met Stallman in person. He's a lunatic. That doesn't make him
evil, or even just bad, but it is a fact.
That said, I have a lot of respect for what he has accomplished, and I
truly hope that one day all of the software we use is Free, although
not for the same reasons that RMS does.
> Anyway, what are you talking about? So the guy's written free
> software? So what? Qt is non-free, and that's all that matters in this
> instance.
I'd disagree. What matters is that Linux has a reasonably attractive,
easy-to-use GUI for all the people out there who think the GUI is the
OS. The fact that the KDE people did as much as they did in such a
short time is a real monument to Qt's ease of use.
> I don't see any reason why Troll Tech can't keep "absolute
> control" over Qt, even if they were to GPL it. They can just have
> their "large paying clients" only buy from them.
I agree. I've attempted to discuss the issue with Arnt in the past...
I'd truly like to see all of these license issues swept away.
In the mean time, it's Troll Tech's code, so it is their decision.
> This allows KDE to be
> free software (currently it's breaking the GPL - you seem to ignore
> that fact)
Oh, come on... The whole argument that KDE isn't free software is
pretty bogus. The relevant portion of the GPL that people are arguing
about is this:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
Note that last sentence. People like to argue that a GPL'd Qt app
isn't allowed because Qt isn't "normally distributed ... with ... the
operating system." Well, Motif isn't distributed with most Linux
distributions, but it is with others, so does that mean that I'm
violating the GPL with a GPL'd app linked against Motif on Linux?
What if I then link it against Lesstif, then it is OK? What if I try
to run a SCO binary of a GPL'd program on Linux, is that OK? Now,
what if I run KDE on S.u.S.E. or Caldera OpenLinux, which ship with
Qt? That's OK, but it isn't OK on Red Hat?
IANAL, but IMNSHO the vague language of the GPL in this section makes
the claim that KDE isn't free software completely bogus.
Of course, there's also always the fact that the person who writes the
software can violate the GPL all they want, as long as they don't use
any *other* GPL'd software, so for most KDE apps, the GPL violation
claims are truly bogus.
> and still allow these so-called "large paying clients" to
> have stable software. Also, I don't get where you're finding your
> arguments... You seem not to realise that in test after test free
> software ends up being faster and more stable than commercial
> software. So I don't think stability is a reason not to GPL Qt.
Heh... Somebody arguing with _me_ about the stability of free
software. :-)
You are definitely preaching to the choir. (Actually, more like the
pastor. ;)
Oh, yeah, I haven't mentioned already... My new record for best
uptime on one of my systems...
11:32pm up 115 days, 15:52, 1 user, load average: 1.08, 1.02, 1.01
BTW, you are reading too much into what I said. I wasn't trying to
say that somehow Qt was more stable by being non-free. (Actually, I
never even used the word "stable".) All I was trying to say is that
Troll Tech is concerned with keeping their customers happy, period.
The rest of the world probably has other concerns, so I *understand*
their license. I don't recall ever saying that I completely agree
with it. (I'm constantly arguing the fact that the GPL not only
allows freedom of choice, but also tends to make software rather
Darwinian... Only truly good changes to GPL'd software will survive.)
> No it doesn't drive him crazy! Have you _talked_ with Richard? How do
> you *know* it drives him insane.
It's real easy to tell what drives him insane. Go look at what he
bitches about most. :-)
> Everyone sees Richard as some crazed lunatic who won't give
> up. However, everyone forgets what he has achieved. His views about
> software have not wavered over the last twenty or so years. It was all
> okay when the first versions of emacs came out and people began to use
> Linux. Now that people are flocking to Linux in masses, people want
> Richard to go away. Why were his views brilliant when Linux was a
> fledgling OS, but now they're suddenly "RMS's fanaticism"?
RMS has always been a fanatic. That doesn't change the fact that the
GPL is a damn brilliant piece of work.
I've been working on a little essay I'm calling "Why the GPL Works".
I'll have to be sure to post a message about it here when I finish
it...
And trust me, I don't want RMS to go away. He's damn handy to have
around when somebody really does violate the GPL. The rest of the
time, I really wish he would sit back, look at what he's already
accomplished, and *think* about what the best course of action is to
further advance his views. (Hint: It isn't to label commercial
software evil. That *will* backfire.)
Oh, BTW, I see you mention Perl in your .signature. You do realize
that RMS recently ranted about how evil O'Reilly was, don't you? And
Larry Wall has never fundamentally agreed with RMS... That's why he
does the dual-license thing with Perl. (Oh, yeah, and Larry works for
O'Reilly too...)
Please do some reading... Larry Wall and Linus Torvalds, two people
who deserve as much, if not more, respect as RMS, *both* think RMS is
too extreme. _That still doesn't change the fact that the GPL is
good._
> Qt is *not* in a happy middle ground. It's in the same no-man's land
> as XSuSE,
Uh, XSuSE is based on XFree86, which is licensed under the old X
Consortium's damn-near-public-domain license, meaning that they could
*refuse* to ever distribute source if they wanted to. (They could
also start charging money for it if they wanted to.)
> except Troll Tech doesn't give out source code eventually.
Troll Tech lets you see, redistribute, and even modify (with certain
restrictions) their source code. How can you even begin to compare
the two?
The biggest difference is that Troll Tech only charges you if you want
to do non-GPL'd software with Qt on X. Consider it a tax on
commercial software. IMNSHO *that* is what Red Hat and others are so
upset by.
> Troll Tech as a company has done nothing for free software
> (this is distinct from "Open Source" software -- the Open Source
> specification is not enough), and making free binaries available is no
> better than Microsoft or anyone else.
*sigh*
So KDE is evil, huh? People using free software on a free OS is bad
_just because of one library_? So if/when Harmony produces real code,
will KDE still be evil?
I'm sorry, but both Troll Tech and the KDE hackers have done a hell of
a lot for free software. Granted, the licensing situation is not
ideal, but _we have a working GUI for the lusers_. The rest can be
ironed out later.
I honestly think that if people hadn't absolutely freaked out with
Troll Tech, the situation might be completely different. As it is, I
think they are sick of hearing people bitch about licensing, so they
ignore it. The situation really called for some diplomacy, and the
free software zealots have *completely* blown it.
> I'm rather fond of WindowMaker. I must admit that I've never seen KDE,
> but WindowMaker is just right for me. Also, it's apparently the window
> manager of choice for GNOME now.
I thought E was the WM of choice for Gnome...
FWIW, I've also become a bit fond of AfterStep. I also installed
WindowMaker, 9wm, and IceWM (and maybe others) the other day, so I'll
probably get around to trying them sooner or later.
One of these years I'll probably start hacking on PerlWM so I can quit
worrying about what window manager to run... ;-) (No, I'm not
joking. It exists.)
Steve
--
steve@silug.org | Linux Users of Central Illinois
(217)698-1694 | Meetings the 4th Tuesday of every month
Steven Pritchard | http://www.luci.org/ for more info
--
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.