Hey, On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 23:38 -0400, Stefan Teleman wrote: > On 9/11/05, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wasted time? As long as *commercial* native KDE applications have to > > pay the "Trolltech Tax" GNOME is the only viable alternative for many > > commercial endeavors. > > KDE does not publish or write any commercial software of any kind. Period. > > There are *no* fees to be paid for downloading, building or using KDE. > > The version of QT used in KDE is the GPL version of QT. As such, there > are no fees or licenses to be paid for using the version of QT used in > KDE.
I think we're all getting confused with various things - what Shawn said was right. What you've said was also correct, but from a KDE point of view. If I'm an ISV, say Adobe, and I write a piece of proprietary software that I want to sell, then I do have to pay a license fee to Trolltech for using QT. However, if I'm okay with making that software free, licensed under the GPL, then I don't have to pay a license fee. As such, that application could be a KDE application. http://www.trolltech.com/company/model.html The same is not true for GNOME. Since GTK+ is licensed under LGPL, as well as most of the platform [1], I don't have that restriction of having to pay the license fee while using those libraries. That core platform being licensed under the LGPL was the one of the very core reasons Sun chose to go with GNOME as a replacement desktop to CDE. Glynn [1] Platform being libraries not applications _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
