Linux-Advocacy Digest #588, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 09:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:49:46 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
> [...]
> >> >Hmmm... KDE doesn't seek to extract profit. So no.
> >>
> >> That's what I don't understand. Does QT seek to extract profit?
> >
> >Qt is a piece of software, it has no intentions.
> >If you mean TT, the company that writes Qt, I suppose they do.
> >They are not KDE, though.
>
> Yea, well, I guess the soft-pedalling "I suppose" and the fact that it
> took a can-opener to get you to admit it
What can-opener? You said KDE seeks profit, I said no. You say
Qt seeks profit, I say "guess TT does"! I must be the easiest can
on earth!
I say "I suppose" because I never bothered asking them, and I don't
see how I could give you their motives. Maybe they are in it for
fun, or for advancement of Norwegian computing reputation. I GUESS
it's for profit.
> tends to expose the fact that
> not only is this the root of the problem, but *you know* it is the root
> of the problem. Now, I can understand that you aren't QT,
Indeed I am not software.
> and you aren't even KDE (itself or an investor)
I am apart of the KDE project. In a way, I am KDE, and KDE is me.
> and you're just a guy who makes a living doing what you do.
As hopefully you are.
> But within the context of the situation,
> which includes Linux, and GPL, you are using a pretense of ignorance in
> not recognizing why it is, precisely, that you get dozens of hate mails
> a week.
I know why I get them, the emails leave no doubts there.
> This *is* an ethical issue, at least to some people. Is it
> *really* only die-hard-delusional FSF fans who see it as a holy crusade
> to stamp out KDE?
Actually, I doubt any FSF fan sees it that way.
> Obviously, these are the ones that disrupt irc and
> send you hate mail (neither of which are ethical in this circumstance),
> but you do know, don't you, that an appreciable number of everyone who
> knows the facts of this issue at least understands the anti-KDE
> sentiment, even if they do not actually sympathize or empathize with it.
I understand the feeling too. I just don't share it.
> If its just the flakes, as extreme and active as they are, then it is a
> moral issue, and I encourage you to hold your ground. But if the
> general consensus would be, if everyone knew all the facts, that QT,
> through KDE, is seeking to profiteer on the success of GPL software,
> then it *may* be an ethical decision that you have to make, and be
> responsible for, even if its a really good job and you don't want to
> lose it.
Qt is software. If you gonna discuss the ethics or whatever of
people, you should at least respect them to call them by their name,
at least the corporate one.
And my job has nothing to do with Qt or KDE, as I have already told
you. I even told you what my job was.
> [...]
> >> By using QT you invest effort into limiting the liberty of the users of
> >> your product.
> >
> >No. I grant the users whatever freedom I feel like granting.
>
> The freedom of the users is not yours to 'grant', Roberto, and I do not
> mean that as merely a rhetorical device.
Freedom to use software I write? It sure is mine to grant. It's called
licensing.
> >To "reduce" their freedom, they would have to come from a previous
> >situation where they had more freedom than I gave them. Their
> >previous situation was "not having my product", so they don't.
>
> Previously, they were not required to pay QT a licensing fee in order to
> benefit from Linux.
Neither are they required to pay TT (not Qt) a licensing fee now in
order to benefit from Linux. Max, you have no idea of what you are
talking about (again).
> In some situations, that freedom has been taken
> away from them, or burdened with the cost of migrating away from KDE,
> which may have benefit for them.
Describe, in few lines, an example of that situation.
> You're holding them up, blackmailing
> them, kidnapping their access, whatever metaphor you might wish to use.
> Their previous situation was "not having to use QT", not they do. And
> your product is responsible for that.
I am not the author or owner of Qt, so you are not talking
about me.
> >> If the only reason you have to use QT is that it works,
> >> and you like it, and you're familiar with it, and the only reason you
> >> have to avoid using QT is that you get hate mail for using it, I would
> >> think you'd have enough professional pride to question more strongly the
> >> choice to use QT.
> >
> >Why? I don't make decisions about how I spend my free time
> >based on hate mail.
>
> You should recognize your ethical mandate to consider the opinions and
> facts which others have to offer. It isn't your free time which is at
> issue; it is your working time.
What working time? My working time is not related to Qt at all.
> >> I know it isn't necessarily only your personal
> >> decision, and wouldn't go so far as to suggest that your ethical
> >> response should be to quit KDE, but it might be more like
> >> "pigheadedness", rather than, as you said "a strong ego" which prevents
> >> you from considering this issue more seriously.
> >
> >I considered them seriously. I decided it was not worth it.
>
> OK. Its your decision to make. I won't second-guess you. But I will
> not use KDE, and will recommend to anyone else that they avoid it as
> well.
Oh, sure. Your word has such weight.
> Its a wolf in sheep's clothing. Though a balancing issue would
> be, of course, the level of profiteering being done. The modern world
> is filled, after all, with 'trade secret' software. QT doesn't even
> stand out on the Linux platform, in truth.
Qt is not a trade secret. You can get it from ftp.troll.no,
it's free software (read it at www.fsf.org) it's open source
software, (read it at www.opensource.org), and it's most
certainly not mine.
> So tell me, just what kind of licensing fees does QT demand? If its low
> enough, I might figure its worth it, as you did.
Depends on what you want to do. with it. For the development of
free software, it has no cost.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:50:54 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
>
> On 22 Aug 2000 23:32:02 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:17:01 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> [deletia]
> >Look, could you at least make some effort to have some idea what you are
> >talking about before you post this kind of drivel ? Seriously, you have
> >no place making these kind of comments when you do not know anything about
> >the license that you are criticising.
> >
> >> If the only reason you have to use QT is that it works,
> >>and you like it, and you're familiar with it, and the only reason you
> >>have to avoid using QT is that you get hate mail for using it, I would
> >>think you'd have enough professional pride to question more strongly the
> >>choice to use QT.
> >
> >You're forgetting that Roberto, and the KDE people use QT because it is
> >FREE SOFTWARE.
>
> No.
>
> You are forgetting what the licence was when they started.
>
> They used QT because it was GRATIS and convenient.
It seemed free enough for me at the time.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:54:13 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>
> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:17:01 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >>>Hmmm... KDE doesn't seek to extract profit. So no.
> >>
> >>That's what I don't understand. Does QT seek to extract profit?
> >
> >QT seeks to profit by requiring those who develop proprietary software
> >with their library to pay for the "professional edition". So yes, they
> >do seek to extract profit, but that doesn't mean that QT is not free.
>
> You mean there is no per-copy licensing fees?
No per-copy fees.
> Well, that's a slightly different story then.
And we all knew it. Nice that you are catching up.
> But it does bring into question where those who
> produced KDE are expecting to make up for the cost.
Well, I got a netwinder on loan, and 3 boxes of SuSE.
> Dammit, *somebody* should be making money. Where's it
> coming from?
We (KDE people) are not in it for the money.
> >>By using QT you invest effort into limiting the liberty of
> >>the users of your product.
> >
> >No more than you do by using GPL'd software.
>
> Then why isn't it GPL?
Why should it be?
[snip crap]
> [...]
> >You're forgetting that Roberto, and the KDE people use QT because it is
> >FREE SOFTWARE.
>
> Maybe "free" as in "free beer", but not *quite* free as in "free
> software".
Free as in free software, free software as in free speech, according to
the FSF.
> >>"pigheadedness", rather than, as you said "a strong ego" which prevents
> >>you from considering this issue more seriously.
> >
> >This comment is a bit much, coming from someone who doesn't even understand
> >what "this issue" actually is. Perhaps you should consider "this issue"
> >more seriously ( by that, I mean, at least understand the implications of
> >the QT license ) before hurling insults at Linux developers.
>
> It was a reference to another thread (or another threadlet in this one;
> who keeps track these days?), so it sounded like a lot more than it was.
>
> So, if you would be so kind, could you explain "this issue", in your own
> words?
You know, Max, this is not a leveling course for the c.o.l.a newbie...
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:00:57 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
> [...]
> >> >> Maybe you should clarify. AFAIK, KDE requires the 'consumer' to agree
> >> >> not to copy certain libraries. This is not free software. Please
> >> >> correct me if I'm mistaken in either regard.
> >> >
> >> >You are mistaken.
> >>
> >> Then please correct me. I don't recall asking "please contradict me
> >> with no explanation if you think I am mistaken". Stop being a troll,
> >> for christ's sake.
> >
> >Well, I would have expected this to be obvious, but let's take the long
> >road:
> >
> >You are mistaken, KDE doesn't require the consumer not to copy certain
> >libraries, and never has required such a thing.
>
> Stop being a pigheaded troll. If you want to posture ignorance, there's
> lesser fools you can bother.
Honestly, I can't find a lesser fool, and trust me, I am not ignorant
here. Ask what you want to know, and I shall answer.
> I'm not going anywhere, though; if it takes a long road, that's your
> fault entirely.
I answered what you asked. Want to ask something else?
> So what did they require,
They used to require basically that you don't distribute modified
version of Qt Free Edition.
> what does QT require,
It requires you comply with the QPL: http://www.troll.no/qpl
> what did they require,
You already asked that.
> what did they change,
The license, from what I said above (roughly), to the QPL.
> when did they change it,
With the release of Qt 2.0
> what didn't they change,
The license for the professional edition, I guess.
> why didn't they change it,
I don't know.
> how much is the "professional edition" license,
http://www.trolltech.com/products/purchase/pricing.html
> and where do you plan to make that money back?
I don't plan on making any moey back.
> Others have not
> been so reticent in providing information, you see, and this only
> highlights how difficult you are being in this discussion.
Hopefully, I have enlightened you.
> [...]
> >> The FSF rhetoric, probably, or a media report of the same. This is an
> >> old post you're responding to, though. I recalled more of the details
> >> concerning QT and the non-commercial nature of KDE while reconsidering
> >> the matter.
> >
> >Ok, no, KDE is not a directly commercial venture, and we are not seeking
> >to make money on distributing our development.
>
> "Ok, no?" I've already said that. Why are you stalling? You know I'm
> not going to give up, and others will provide 'alternative' explanations
> whether you do or not. So give it up: what *are* you seeking to make
> money on.
My job. used to make the money as a net/sys admin at college.
Now I make it as technical director for a company.
> I doubt they're paying your salary through philanthropic
> sentiment.
Indeed I work for my money, just not on KDE.
> [...]
> >It's so free you could link it to GPL code, and the GPL would
> >be the license deciding the distribution restrictions.
>
> Well, see, that's true of *all* software, according to the FSF. So the
> only piece of information in your statement is that there are some other
> things which prevent it from simply being GPL. I hate when I find
> information only in the breach; could you (or somebody) tell me what's
> going on?
BSD license.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:02:33 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
> [...]
> >> GNOME was a reaction to the licence of libqt. It's basically
> >> "KDE without the commercial library underneath". There are
> >> other personal difference beyond that but that was the initial
> >> motivation.
> >
> >And still, that doesn't say anything close to "KDE is a directly
> >commercial venture".
>
> Well, yes it does, Roberto. Does QT pay your salary?
Qt is software, so no, Qt doesn't pay my sallary. If you are
really asking whether TT pays my sallary, no, they don't pay
my sallary, I already told you who pays my sallary.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:08:55 -0300
Donovan Rebbechi escribi�:
> > making all pretense that KDE isn't a
> >commercial endeavor absolutely meaningless,
>
> How do you come to this conclusion ???
>
> (*) KDE developers are volunteers, they are not on Troll Tech's payroll.
> Troll Tech don't necessarily know about all the KDE developers.
I must correct you: a few (half a dozen or so) KDE developers work or
have worked for TT. After all, KDE has attracted very good programmers
(not me ;-) who are very good at using Qt, so it's a good catch for TT.
> (*) The KDE developers write software under licenses that even the hard core
> zealots accept as free ( usually GPL, LGPL and artistic licenses ).
And BSD-no-publicity.
> (*) The KDE developers are not paid by anyone.
Well, some of us are paid to work on KDE (not me, again ;-)
> (*) As stated above, KDE have the same relation to Troll that they do with
> the FSF -- in both cases, KDE are a user of a piece of software. In a
> sort of proof by contradiction, your logic would have it that KDE are
> non-commercial because their use of the FSF's software means that they
> "are" the FSF.
Yup.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:11:21 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:04:18 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:09:01 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:10:05 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> This is the big question. With all of the labor potential the
> >> >> >> KDE project seems to have, why not make a clean break to a
> >> >> >> core library that is beyond reproach?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You are liberal at spending the effort of others. Join [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >>
> >> >> Not nearly as much as you are.
> >> >>
> >> >> You want others to fix your poo.
> >> >
> >> >Where have I asked anyone to fix something for me? Put up or apologize.
> >>
> >> You are whining about my reluctance to waste my labors
> >> fixing the poor design decisions of others. KDE is not
> >> my poo to fix.
> >
> >You tell me to fix it. I tell you: fix it yourself. If that's asking you
> >to fix my "poo", then so be it.
>
> No. I merely stated that KDE had 'labor to burn' and that
> dumping QT would be quite worthwhile for PR purposes.
We don't code for PR purposes. There are more fun things to do.
> >
> >> Plus there are legal complications.
> >
> >Such as? Fraudulent impersonation of a programmer?
>
> Being sued by TrollTech.
If you do nothing ilegal, you'll win, and they would likely
not sue you.
> >> [deletia]
> >>
> >> Besides, it's the core development team that has to eventually
> >> commit to an alternative library. Even a feature complete
> >> version of Harmony won't achieve that.
> >
> >Show us the library, we may show you commitment. Should we not
> >show you commitment, I'm sure you can find your way through to
> >make a huge /. article about it.
>
> This is just a lame excuse to not make an easy first step. It could
> even be a completely meaningless 'first step', yet be quite useful
> in terms of PR.
I don't believe on doing stuff I don't really mean for PR's sake.
> Anyone who works on Harmony has to worry about legal challenges from
> Troll, the FSF offering no support unless the library is not licenced
> LGPL and the possibility of just plain being ignored.
Yup. Life's a bitch.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:15:12 -0300
Ostracus escribi�:
It's about Qt ports to win32, I will snip the intro.
[snip]
> The problem I see with this is twofold. I don't think that TT would appreciate
> an "end run" on their revenue model.
I bet they wouldn't. If you want to do the port, you can still do it,
though.
> Yes some of it comes from commercial development on the Unix side.
> But some also comes from the Windows side as well.
> A fact re-enforced in that QT for windows is ONLY on the professional edition. A
> free port would dry up that particular revenue stream. As Jedi pointed out, who
> would "legally" own any port to other platforms?
The people doing the ports own the changes they made to perform the
port.
The same people is allowed to distribute binary and source packages for
the ported version (as long as the changes for the sources to the port
are presented separate from the originals, such as patches).
Just read the QPL.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
