Re: KDE vs Gnome

[Chris Tessone <tessone@imsa.edu>]

>>>>> "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.