[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: KDE vs Gnome




I've conversed with RMS on free software, too.....I wouldn't go as far as
saying he's a lunatic, but he does seem a bit "edgy".  I simply slipped
and referred to my system as a Linux system (rather than a GNU/Linux
system) and I received an 8 page email about my "grave mistake".  And I
wasn't even arguing with him about free software, I was trying to make
sure I had *my* software correctly under the GPL :D  That seems pretty
nutty to moi :D

Koree

______________________________________________
Koree A. Smith  | Co-Administrator, Ameth.org
koree@Ameth.org | http://www.ameth.org/~koree/
koree@koree.net | Linux Rules!
NT < *IX        | I Corinthians 2:1-5


On 17 Oct 1998, Chris Tessone wrote:

> 
> >>>>> "Steven" == Steven Pritchard <steve@silug.org> writes:
> 
> And so it continues...
> 
>     Steven> I've met Stallman in person.  He's a lunatic.  That
>     Steven> doesn't make him evil, or even just bad, but it is a fact.
> 
> Meeting Richard in person isn't the same as conversing with him about
> free software and the GPL...
> 
>     Steven> That said, I have a lot of respect for what he has
>     Steven> accomplished, and I truly hope that one day all of the
>     Steven> software we use is Free, although not for the same reasons
>     Steven> that RMS does.
> 
> What are your reasons?
> 
>     Steven> I'd disagree.  What matters is that Linux has a reasonably
>     Steven> attractive, easy-to-use GUI for all the people out there
>     Steven> who think the GUI is the OS.  The fact that the KDE people
>     Steven> did as much as they did in such a short time is a real
>     Steven> monument to Qt's ease of use.
> 
> Well, I think our points of view are fundamentally different. I am
> most interested in protecting the interests of free software and
> seeing all software companies produce only free software in the sense
> which Richard would also like to see. You appear to be primarily
> concerned with having a nice, usable operating system. I don't think
> these differences are irreconcilable, just different. I don't think
> you're evil because you hold those views; I hope you don't think me
> crazy for holding mine.
> 
>     Steven> I agree.  I've attempted to discuss the issue with Arnt in
>     Steven> the past...  I'd truly like to see all of these license
>     Steven> issues swept away.
> 
> Me too.
>  
>     Steven> In the mean time, it's Troll Tech's code, so it is their
>     Steven> decision.
> 
> Yup.
> 
>     Steven> Oh, come on...  The whole argument that KDE isn't free
>     Steven> software is pretty bogus.  The relevant portion of the GPL
>     Steven> that people are arguing about is this:
> 
>     Steven>     The source code for a work means the preferred form of
>     Steven> the work for making modifications to it.  For an
>     Steven> executable work, complete source code means all the source
>     Steven> code for all modules it contains, plus any associated
>     Steven> interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
>     Steven> control compilation and installation of the executable.
>     Steven> However, as a special exception, the source code
>     Steven> distributed need not include anything that is normally
>     Steven> distributed (in either source or binary form) with the
>     Steven> major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
>     Steven> operating system on which the executable runs, unless that
>     Steven> component itself accompanies the executable.
> 
>     Steven> Note that last sentence.  People like to argue that a
>     Steven> GPL'd Qt app isn't allowed because Qt isn't "normally
>     Steven> distributed ... with ... the operating system."  Well,
>     Steven> Motif isn't distributed with most Linux distributions, but
>     Steven> it is with others, so does that mean that I'm violating
>     Steven> the GPL with a GPL'd app linked against Motif on Linux?
>     Steven> What if I then link it against Lesstif, then it is OK?
>     Steven> What if I try to run a SCO binary of a GPL'd program on
>     Steven> Linux, is that OK?  Now, what if I run KDE on S.u.S.E. or
>     Steven> Caldera OpenLinux, which ship with Qt?  That's OK, but it
>     Steven> isn't OK on Red Hat?
> 
> It's not at all okay, as far as I know, none are okay. In fact, it's
> not alright to link Motif to any GPL'd code. Yes, that's restrictive,
> but it's all that's acceptable if one considers Stallman's
> vision. Perhaps Stallman *is* crazy by your standards. I don't think
> idealism is crazy at all.
> 
>     Steven> IANAL, but IMNSHO the vague language of the GPL in this
>     Steven> section makes the claim that KDE isn't free software
>     Steven> completely bogus.
> 
> Yeah, it is vague, but I don't think that's on purpose. Perhaps the
> wording should be changed...
> 
>     Steven> Of course, there's also always the fact that the person
>     Steven> who writes the software can violate the GPL all they want,
>     Steven> as long as they don't use any *other* GPL'd software, so
>     Steven> for most KDE apps, the GPL violation claims are truly
>     Steven> bogus.
> 
> Huh? I think I was talking about users, not developers.
> 
>     Steven> Heh...  Somebody arguing with _me_ about the stability of
>     Steven> free software.  :-)
>     Steven> You are definitely preaching to the choir.  (Actually,
>     Steven> more like the pastor.  ;)
> 
> Heh. I'm new to the list and I've yet to come to a meeting since I'm
> only at home during the summer. Once I get to know you all better, I
> won't act so silly. :-)
> 
>     Steven> Oh, yeah, I haven't mentioned already...  My new record
>     Steven> for best uptime on one of my systems...
>     Steven>  11:32pm up 115 days, 15:52, 1 user, load average: 1.08,
>     Steven> 1.02, 1.01
> 
> We had a pretty high uptime (I forget -- somewhere around 120 days,
> then some NT jerk hit ^S and thought the machine had frozen, so he
> hard-rebooted it :-D) on our X server. Ah, the beauty of a stable
> operating system... :-)
> 
>     Steven> BTW, you are reading too much into what I said.  I wasn't
>     Steven> trying to say that somehow Qt was more stable by being
>     Steven> non-free.  (Actually, I never even used the word
>     Steven> "stable".)  All I was trying to say is that Troll Tech is
>     Steven> concerned with keeping their customers happy, period.  The
>     Steven> rest of the world probably has other concerns, so I
>     Steven> *understand* their license.  I don't recall ever saying
>     Steven> that I completely agree with it.  (I'm constantly arguing
>     Steven> the fact that the GPL not only allows freedom of choice,
>     Steven> but also tends to make software rather Darwinian...  Only
>     Steven> truly good changes to GPL'd software will survive.)
> 
> Heh. I suppose.
> 
>     Steven> It's real easy to tell what drives him insane.  Go look at
>     Steven> what he bitches about most.  :-)
> 
> Well, it's not because he's "half-winning, half-losing". It's because
> he'd like to see the situation rectified.
> 
>     Steven> RMS has always been a fanatic.  That doesn't change the
>     Steven> fact that the GPL is a damn brilliant piece of work.
>     Steven> I've been working on a little essay I'm calling "Why the
>     Steven> GPL Works".  I'll have to be sure to post a message about
>     Steven> it here when I finish it...
>     Steven> And trust me, I don't want RMS to go away.  He's damn
>     Steven> handy to have around when somebody really does violate the
>     Steven> GPL.  The rest of the time, I really wish he would sit
>     Steven> back, look at what he's already accomplished, and *think*
>     Steven> about what the best course of action is to further advance
>     Steven> his views.  (Hint: It isn't to label commercial software
>     Steven> evil.  That *will* backfire.)
> 
> :-)
> 
>     Steven> Oh, BTW, I see you mention Perl in your .signature.  You
>     Steven> do realize that RMS recently ranted about how evil
>     Steven> O'Reilly was, don't you?  And Larry Wall has never
>     Steven> fundamentally agreed with RMS...  That's why he does the
>     Steven> dual-license thing with Perl.  (Oh, yeah, and Larry works
>     Steven> for O'Reilly too...)
> 
> Actually, yes. I'm on the FSF Free Perl Documentation Project. Just
> because Perl's documentation is evil doesn't mean I can't use it. It's
> quite a nice language, as I'm sure you've heard/know.
> 
>     Steven> Please do some reading...  Larry Wall and Linus Torvalds,
>     Steven> two people who deserve as much, if not more, respect as
>     Steven> RMS, *both* think RMS is too extreme.  _That still doesn't
>     Steven> change the fact that the GPL is good._
> 
> Nor does it change the fact that I agree with him. :-)
> 
>     Steven> Uh, XSuSE is based on XFree86, which is licensed under the
>     Steven> old X Consortium's damn-near-public-domain license,
>     Steven> meaning that they could *refuse* to ever distribute source
>     Steven> if they wanted to.  (They could also start charging money
>     Steven> for it if they wanted to.)
> 
> Yes, they could. I'm saying that the distinction between Qt and XSuSE
> is that SuSE gives their code back to XFree86 for the next release (or
> whenever the NDC is lifted for whatever card).
> 
>     Steven> Troll Tech lets you see, redistribute, and even modify
>     Steven> (with certain restrictions) their source code.  How can
>     Steven> you even begin to compare the two?
> 
> Okay, I missed that. So I don't read Richard's posts to Usenet
> religiously... Oh well. :-)
> 
>     Steven> The biggest difference is that Troll Tech only charges you
>     Steven> if you want to do non-GPL'd software with Qt on X.
>     Steven> Consider it a tax on commercial software.  IMNSHO *that*
>     Steven> is what Red Hat and others are so upset by.
> 
> Hrm. Strange...
> 
>     Steven> So KDE is evil, huh?  People using free software on a free
>     Steven> OS is bad _just because of one library_?  So if/when
>     Steven> Harmony produces real code, will KDE still be evil?
> 
> I didn't say it was evil. :-) Just non-free. If I said evil, I didn't
> mean it that badly.
> 
>     Steven> I'm sorry, but both Troll Tech and the KDE hackers have
>     Steven> done a hell of a lot for free software.  Granted, the
>     Steven> licensing situation is not ideal, but _we have a working
>     Steven> GUI for the lusers_.  The rest can be ironed out later.
> 
> I'm sure they have. I have great respect for them. Even more respect
> than I do for the Microsoft people who, despite churning out a bad OS
> still work hard on it.
> 
>     Steven> I honestly think that if people hadn't absolutely freaked
>     Steven> out with Troll Tech, the situation might be completely
>     Steven> different.  As it is, I think they are sick of hearing
>     Steven> people bitch about licensing, so they ignore it.  The
>     Steven> situation really called for some diplomacy, and the free
>     Steven> software zealots have *completely* blown it.
> 
> Perhaps. It's certainly not good to see this in-fighting. We are,
> after all, supposed to be working toward the same goal...
> 
>     Steven> I thought E was the WM of choice for Gnome...
>     Steven> FWIW, I've also become a bit fond of AfterStep.  I also
>     Steven> installed WindowMaker, 9wm, and IceWM (and maybe others)
>     Steven> the other day, so I'll probably get around to trying them
>     Steven> sooner or later.
> 
> I liked the old AfterStep, but the new one is...strange. Perhaps I'm
> just old-fashioned. I'm pretty sure WM is now the window manager of
> choice for GNOME. At any rate, grab the userfriendly and
> DeathofSocrates themes from wm.themes.org. They're quite cool.
> 
>     Steven> One of these years I'll probably start hacking on PerlWM
>     Steven> so I can quit worrying about what window manager to run...
>     Steven> ;-) (No, I'm not joking.  It exists.)
> 
> PerlWM? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! I'm fond of Perl, but not *that* fond!
> How? How is that at all possible?
> 
> At any rate, let's not turn this into a three month, six thousand post
> long flame war. Let's just agree that we have difference and go back
> to our advocacy and other random stuff.
> 
> Chris
> 
> -- 
> Chris Tessone         tessone@fnal.gov         tessone@imsa.edu
> PH/sendmail SNPC        System Administration        Perl/Shell
> All you need is Perl, love. Perl is all you need.
> http://www.imsa.edu/~tessone/
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
> "unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.
> 


--
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.