On 9/11/05, Stefan Teleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/12/05, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/11/05, Stefan Teleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Please stop posting erroneous information. > > > > While parts of GNOME are released under the GPL, the main libraries > > that matter such as Gtk, are LGPL. Therefore it is not erroneous. > > Yes it is. kdelibs, and a few other libraries in KDE are LGPL as well. > > libgtk is not GNOME. Just as kdelibs is not KDE. > > You are free to write your own commercial application linked against > libgtk, or kdelibs.
But what good is a KDE app if it doesn't use Qt? Not much good, therefore... > > http://www.gtk.org/faq/ > > "GTK+ is free software and part of the GNU Project. However, the > > licensing terms for GTK+, the GNU LGPL, allow it to be used by all > > developers, including those developing proprietary software, without > > any license fees or royalties." > > > > http://www.sun.com/software/star/gnome/faq/generalfaq.xml#q28 > > "Q: > > How is GNOME licensed? > > A: > > Most of GNOME is licensed in accordance with the GNU General Public > > License (GPL) and the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). " > > > > So again, GNOME does not require you to pay a "Tax" just to produce > > native non-GPL software. KDE does. > > KDE does *not* require paying a license. Any statement to the contrary is > false. > QT used in KDE does *not* require paying a license. Any statement to > the contrary > is false. KDE does not require paying a license. However, the main toolkit of Qt *does* require a license if you want to write native *non-GPL* KDE applications (which to be considered native must use Qt). Therefore what I have stated is not incorrect. I don't understand why you continue to imply that commercial non-GPL software doesn't have to pay for a Qt license, when Trolltech themselves states so! > Licensing GNOME under any terms other than the GPL is not allowed. You apparently just ignored the FAQ answer that stated that *parts of GNOME* are licensed under the LGPL? I'm baffled as to why you keep insisting things that the project themselves says are not true! > Licensing KDE under any terms other than the GPL is not allowed. > > Please stop posting erroneous information. Please read what I wrote. For example, the UserLinux project chose GNOME over KDE for the very reasons I keep discussing: "Q: Why did UserLinux decide to not included Qt based programs in the standard version?" "...commercial license: upon paying a fee to Trolltech, developers can develop commercial and proprietary (non-Free) applications that link legally with the Qt library. In this sense, Qt is commercial software: if companies want to develop commercial and non-Free software on top of Qt, they can do so, but also contribute financially to the further development of Qt and the commercial success of Trolltech." Read the full answer to the above question here: http://www.userlinux.com/about/faq Basically, the point is to write a non-GPL native KDE application (which means you end up having to use Qt) you have to pay Trolltech for a license. Therefore writing most commercial applications requires paying licensing fees when developing for KDE. The same is not true when developing for GNOME. So, in summary: * If you want to write any non-GPL fully native application for KDE you must license Qt from Trolltech since to be a fully native KDE application you have to use Qt. I don't think anyone would support the notion that it is possible to write a "native" KDE application without using Qt. * You can write a fully native GNOME application without paying any licensing fees unlike KDE. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
