Karl Nelson wrote:
> By the way, I think it is very ironic how you so generously
> cheer a proprietary software company just because they
> give away a few freebees. If I were to use that
> same standard, I would have to cheer MicroSoft for
> all their fine contribution as well (all those API interfaces
> and give aways to universities). The only difference being
> Microsofts contributions didn't have free software only strings.
It is grossly unfair to compare a multibillion dollar conglomerate with a small group
of
developers trying to put food on the table and give back to the free software world.
> It was in Troll Techs best interest to try to ride Linux to success.
They had no idea that their toolkit would be used for such a successful Linux project
like KDE. The way you put it insinuatess that there was some kind of conspiracy.
> Their license managed to nearly put an end to a GNU project
This is debatable, but they fixed the license anyway.
> and the freedoms they gave still leaves a strangle hold on the
> KDE desktop.
This is ridiculous. Qt may be now be modified and Troll Tech can _never_ (because of a
legal contract they signed) take Qt away from the project.
> >> >6. Stallman has been critical of the LGPL;
> >> ... but still it should be used under certain circumstances (see Karl
> >> Nelson's post).
> >
> >But did you see what Stallman himself posted to this list:
> >Richard Stallman wrote:
> >
> >> I think it is better to release Harmony under the GPL,
> >> for mostly the same reasons you
> >
> >that is, I :-)
> >
> >> have stated.
> >
> >I read Karl's post, but he missed (or chose not to address) my point about
> >"harmony" in the sense of the original purpose of this project. If a GPL'd Harmony
> >is not in the interests of those supporting it, there should be an open admission
> >on the webpage that the nature of the mission has changed.
>
> I have no knowledge of the original intent of the original goal of the
> Harmony project.
Oh come on, it is on the original Harmony webpage (I quoted from it), and members of
the
original team rehashed this after the first draft of the QPL was released.
> (You seem to indicate that Harmony was born in without respect to
> KDE.
I said eactly the opposite. I think that the present direction is somewhat
disrespectful
of KDE and certainly of Troll Tech.
> However, if it weren't for KDE I doubt many people would even
> have heard of Qt.)
True, which complements my earlier point that the Trolls did not invent KDE. You can't
blame them for its success.
> Further, limiting the projects usefulness will reduce the number of
> contributors. And since the greatest change facing the Harmony project
> is getting up to speed so that if can make a play of for KDE, it would
> seem like limiting the scope would be the worst thing possible. Basically,
> KDE would never use it and any contribution to it would be pointless.
Why would KDE not use it? Surely free software purists would use it.
> Widget sets have been
> done to death; propretary companies will just select the one with the most
> flexibly license (which won't be GPL). On the other hand if they
> think it is in the best interest to help an LGPL project for their
> own projects, they may well donate time of a professional programmer or
> two.
Which takes me back to my original point: the present thrust of Harmony has less to do
with free software or "harmony" and more to do with making a free Qt-clone for
business.
If that is the case, fine; just be clear and honest about it.
> The result of GPL will be that they don't contribute anything to the free
> software movement. And that is what I would consider a shame. Or
> worst is KDE becomes the main desktop, linux becomes a commercial for Qt.
Rather (assuming for the sake of argument that Qt is _necessary_ (it may be useful) to
write KDE applications, which is actually a myth), Linux becomes commercial for those
who want to sell proprietary software applications for Linux.
> (I don't want another Motif, slow to adapt and poor to use!) If Qt
> was a open source project
It _is_ now an opensource project.
> it would have progressed much farther and
> faster. Instead it is locked to the will of a company.
Nonsense, because the QPL and the KDE-QT free software foundation also lock Troll Tech
into serving the interests of free software in general and KDE in particular. There is
fair give and take here. Besides, Qt has developed quite rapidly.
Idris
