Active Topics
-
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (9)
to SailfishOS by biketool - 12 hrs, 15 mins ago -
[Announce] coderus unrestricted system-ui (297)
to MeeGo / Harmattan by nieldk - 6 days, 17 hrs ago - more...
| The Following User Says Thank You to fanoush For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-01-14
, 12:33
|
|
Posts: 3,790 |
Thanked: 5,718 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#2
|
Mhm... Not being LGLP was one of the advantages Qt had over GTK in the past. Thou shalt not lessen the GPL.
Anyway, it was clear Nokia would do this.
Anyway, it was clear Nokia would do this.
 |
|
2009-01-14
, 12:49
|
|
Posts: 5,478 |
Thanked: 5,222 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
@ St. Petersburg, FL
|
#3
|
Originally Posted by benny1967
It depends on your perspective. You can either choose to be a zealot, accept no concessions, and drive people away; or you can be a pragmatist, accept a few concessions, and then proceed to convince them of the value of your ideals after you've won them over.
Mhm... Not being LGLP was one of the advantages Qt had over GTK in the past. Thou shalt not lessen the GPL.
The second method is usually much more productive than the first.
__________________
Ryan Abel
Ryan Abel
| The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GeneralAntilles For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-01-14
, 13:05
|
|
Posts: 3,790 |
Thanked: 5,718 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#4
|
The articel fanoush linked to
Originally Posted by fanoush
does contain some good news, though:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...velopment.html
In addition to adopting the LGPL license for Qt, Nokia will also be completely changing Qt's development model to make it more inclusive and transparent. The source code will be moved to a publicly-accessible Git repository so that the latest changes will always be visible. The use of Git, a distributed version control system, will make it easier for third-party developers to participate directly in the process of improving Qt. To further reduce the barrier to participation, Nokia plans to accept code from contributors without requiring copyright assignment.
| The Following User Says Thank You to benny1967 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-01-14
, 13:05
|
|
Posts: 2,152 |
Thanked: 1,490 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
@ Czech Republic
|
#5
|
Originally Posted by benny1967
Never heard this side. So someone really thinks keeping Qt as GPL will result in more free software then LGPL?
Not being LGLP was one of the advantages Qt had over GTK in the past. Thou shalt not lessen the GPL.
Now I am reading http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html and see FSF opinion shift
Anyway, this 'gpl only advantage' does not apply to Qt since it has commercial licence too.
__________________
Newbies click here before posting. Thanks.
If you really need to PM me with troubleshooting question please consider posting it to the forum instead. It is OK to PM me a link to such post then. Thank you.
Newbies click here before posting. Thanks.
If you really need to PM me with troubleshooting question please consider posting it to the forum instead. It is OK to PM me a link to such post then. Thank you.
| The Following User Says Thank You to fanoush For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-01-14
, 13:15
|
|
Posts: 3,404 |
Thanked: 4,474 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
@ Germany
|
#6
|
One of the reasons why the industry favoured GTK over Qt was because Qt was not LGPL. Maemo, vmware, and others would most likely have been Qt-based from the beginning on.
|
|
2009-01-14
, 13:29
|
|
Posts: 3,790 |
Thanked: 5,718 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#7
|
Originally Posted by fanoush
It's a really old POV. I started to learn about free software and the ideas behind it in 2002/2003, and I remember back then the LGPL was considered the black sheep among licenses. It's a very logical thing, anyway, if you consider what the GPL protects and the LGPL doesn't.
Never heard this side.
Originally Posted by fanoush
No. That's not the real point. (I don't think one single project ever became free software only because they used a GPLed library and it would be very naive to expect this.)
So someone really thinks keeping Qt as GPL will result in more free software then LGPL?
The point is that those who write proprietary code (which is not a bad thing as such - I'm not one of those who say each and every single application needs to be free software, not even on my tablet
) should not commercially exploit the work of people who originally wanted to provide free software.(In other words: If others want to use the code for proprietary projects, make them pay and use a commercial license. Don't let them have the benefits of free software without the obligations.)
The problem with the LGPL is that it it makes contributors believe they work for a free project, while in fact they contribute directly to the proprietary (and usually: commercial) code of unknown vendors. I don't know how much of a real problem this is for the actual codebase of Qt right now, but it's a matter of principle.
Originally Posted by fanoush
There's no "opinion shift". As I said, what's written in this why-not-lgpl-article you refer to is what I read about licensing 6-7 years ago. (It might even have been the same text, among others; it looks familiar.) And it's nothing but a logical consequence of comparing LGPL and GPL.
Now I am reading http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html and see FSF opinion shift
Last edited by benny1967; 2009-01-14 at 13:33.
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to benny1967 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-01-14
, 13:55
|
|
Posts: 631 |
Thanked: 1,123 times |
Joined on Sep 2005
@ Helsinki
|
#8
|
Originally Posted by benny1967
I hope this thread doesn't turn into a Slashdot style GPL license deathmatch.
The point is that those who write proprietary code (which is not a bad thing as such - I'm not one of those who say each and every single application needs to be free software, not even on my tablet
(In other words: If others want to use the code for proprietary projects, make them pay and use a commercial license. Don't let them have the benefits of free software without the obligations.)
The problem with the LGPL is that it it makes contributors believe they work for a free project, while in fact they contribute directly to the proprietary (and usually: commercial) code of unknown vendors. I don't know how much of a real problem this is for the actual codebase of Qt right now, but it's a matter of principle.
Personally I feel that "free as in freedom", not "free as in beer" makes more sense. Why shouldn't somebody be able to make money from free software. Making money is a strong motivation to develop something further, and everybody wins, in their own ways. (Then again, I'm also a GPL2 type of guy instead of a GPL3 type of guy.)
Yes, there are alternative viewpoints to this, and those are also valid.
|
|
2009-01-14
, 14:57
|
|
Posts: 3,319 |
Thanked: 5,610 times |
Joined on Aug 2008
@ Finland
|
#9
|
It's a thing that Qt 'needed' Nokia for. When Trolltech was on it's own, Qt (and Qtopia) were end products. If they licensed under LGPL back then, that would directly undercut commercial licenses (GPL is a completely different story, it was QPL and not GPL because the Fear Of Fork). With Nokia in the picture, Qt becomes a mean to an end, so short term loss of revenue in exchange for market share/penetration (especially in the embedded/phone area) becomes acceptable, especially if you consider that you need to gather as many ISVs as you can before Android reaches full momentum. I'm not a market analyst, though, so take this with a grain of salt.
 |
|
2009-01-14
, 15:15
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#10
|
Originally Posted by fanoush
Well, the point (IIRC the FSF's position) would be that if Qt is better than other alternatives, it should stay GPLed, not LGPL, to force other code open; that's the rationale for, e.g., GNU readline*. Whereas with no improvement in functionality, it'll obviously just drive proprietary projects away.
Never heard this side. So someone really thinks keeping Qt as GPL will result in more free software then LGPL?
Now I am reading http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html and see FSF opinion shift
That still works, because the commercial license costs money, thus leaving them with some incentive to GPL their project. But the LGPL gives them something for nothing -- no payment, and no release of their code, completely eliminating the residual incentive.
*GNU readline, BTW, serves in my mind as a good demonstration of why it doesn't really matter anyhow. There are Open-Source types, notably in the BSD projects, who don't like the extra restrictions of the GPL -- they actually like contributing to free software, knowing that it may be used in non-free software. So some of these people (with NetBSD) cloned it, and released the clone under a new-BSD. If you actually do add a significant advantage, you can expect this to happen. (And making Open-Source people go away for the sake of Free-Software schemes is not a realistic option.)
Originally Posted by benny1967
Actually, they do claim one package, on account of readline. And they don't say what one, so I'd guess it's of no great significance.
(I don't think one single project ever became free software only because they used a GPLed library and it would be very naive to expect this.)
__________________
World's first inductively-charged N900!
World's first inductively-charged N900!
| The Following User Says Thank You to Benson For This Useful Post: | ||
Very good news :-)
EDIT: oh, it is already on planet.maemo.org too, sorry for duplicity
Newbies click here before posting. Thanks.
If you really need to PM me with troubleshooting question please consider posting it to the forum instead. It is OK to PM me a link to such post then. Thank you.
Last edited by fanoush; 2009-01-14 at 11:44.