| |||||||||||
Qt, the GPL, Business and Freedom (OfB)Qt, the GPL, Business and Freedom (OfB)Posted Aug 8, 2005 21:40 UTC (Mon) by ajross (subscriber, #4563)In reply to: Qt, the GPL, Business and Freedom (OfB) by ewan Parent article: Qt, the GPL, Business and Freedom (OfB) Right, that was the point of the linked article. The problem is that the sentiment doesn't map well to real world situations. If you're an IT manager thinking of developing an in-house desktop application, KDE is "complicated". The version you get with your linux distribution forces your software to be GPL (eek!). Or you can buy an SDK from a third-party company named "Trolltech" you may never have hard of that doesn't sell KDE or linux. And even then, you don't want to actually use the Qt SDK; you want to link against the Qt on the distribution. You just need the non-GPL license. And then some geek wanders in to tell you that you don't technically have to release the software under the GPL, so having a GPLed internal application may be just fine. At which point you chuck the idea and go back to windows, where at least you know what you're getting with your MSDN license. In contrast, an LGPL'ed shared library works the way that someone from the commercial world expects. Your software stays "yours", and the platform stays the platform. No confusion. I'm trying really hard not to turn this into a flame war. There's nothing "wrong" with the Qt license from the perspective of a free software developer. But it is a complication, and therefore a barrier to entry, to developers coming from the commercial world. It seems to me like a lot of the KDE people have their heads in the sand about this, and might productively start thinking about a post-Troll KDE toolkit.
(Log in to post comments)
Qt, the GPL, Business and Freedom (OfB) Posted Aug 8, 2005 22:00 UTC (Mon) by aseigo (guest, #18394) [Link] having worked with Qt in the real world for many years now, the licensingis rarely an issue outside of tiny shops with no budget. professional devel shops and medium->large sized corps doing in house devel tend to not even bat their eyes at these issues, especially when compared to the money saved when working with Qt as a foundation. is it a possible deal breaker? yep. is it, in practice, the huge blocker of an issue some are making it out to be? no.
Qt, the GPL, Business and Freedom (OfB) Posted Aug 8, 2005 23:49 UTC (Mon) by pynm0001 (guest, #18379) [Link] So in a real-world situation a corporation developing an application isgoing to choose a GUI toolkit with no commercial support instead of one with? You pointed out a similar example yourself: Many companies willingly buy MSDN licenses when they don't have to. The Platform SDK is available from Microsoft for free, and they'll even mail you the CD for a very reasonable fee. And yet, companies spend big bucks on a MSDN license. Why is this? Perhaps it's because of the support that such a license buys the company and its developers. Perhaps they want someone to yell at when something doesn't work. Perhaps they just feel better knowing that somewhere in Redmond is a Microserf whose only duty is to make sure that they are able to easily develop their needed software. Who is the GTK+-serf that is doing this today? When a bug in GTK+ is breaking their application, who do they contact? Novell? Red Hat? The fact is that in the "real world", the PHBs and executives in the corporations like being able to hold someone accountable. It's called Covering Your Ass, and it's the basis of the business plans of many companies that make money from taking shit from executives in a panic, including the companies behind MySQL, JBoss, and yes, even Qt. I would like to know what is up with the FUD regarding: 'Your software stays "yours", and the platform stays the platform.' This sounds very similar to the GPL-as-a-virus argument that has been parroted and quickly discredited many times before. Except that in this case you bought the *QPL*-ed edition. If you have not read the QPL before, it appears to be similar to the LGPL by my reading, you can read it at http://www.trolltech.com/licenses/qpl-annotated.html But to try and head off the flame war: You're right when you say that companies trying to develop proprietary software using a Free library are going to have trouble. Trolltech offers them a way out, a way that for the vast majority of corporations is a net money saver. For users of Free software such as KDE and Scribus, we get a commercial-quality library backed by dozens of the smartest developers money can hire. This is not to mention the developers sponsored by Trolltech to work on non-Qt software, such as the upcoming Exa hardware acceleration patches for X.org. So if a few companies are legally restrained from leeching off of the hard work of others without either paying the Trolls for their trouble, or sharing the results of their burden like the rest of us, I'll go ahead and say that I honestly would not shed a tear. Regards, - Michael Pyne
Qt, the GPL, Business and Freedom (OfB) Posted Aug 9, 2005 0:14 UTC (Tue) by ajross (subscriber, #4563) [Link] > So in a real-world situation a corporation developing an application> is going to choose a GUI toolkit with no commercial support instead > of one with?
This is a straw man. Commercial customers that buy their linux from distributors like Red Hat or Novell most certainly do get a GUI toolkit with commercial support. And yes, Red Hat and Novell both track bugs in Gtk+ (and Qt, for that matter) for their customers.
The problem (trying to state this very carefully so as not to be misinterpreted again) is that Red Hat and Novell aren't able to offer support for non-GPL'ed KDE application development in the same way that they are able to for Gnome applications. This is not "bad" from a free software perspective. But it is "complicated" for the customers insofar as it differs from the way it works with competing products (Gnome, OS/X, MSDN, Solaris, etc...)
I'll stop now. But *please* re-read my earlier posts, with an eye to the facts that (1) I'm not arguing that developers should be choosing Gnome/Gtk over KDE/Qt and (2) I'm personally very much a fan of the GPL. But that doesn't mean that all things Troll are a good thing for KDE, either. You don't have to be pro-Gnome to think that, perhaps, a less "complicated" relationship with the underlying toolkit might be a good thing for KDE.
Qt, the GPL, Business and Freedom (OfB) Posted Aug 9, 2005 2:06 UTC (Tue) by pynm0001 (guest, #18379) [Link] > The problem (trying to state this very carefully so as not to be> misinterpreted again) is that Red Hat and Novell aren't able to > offer support for non-GPL'ed KDE application development in the > same way that they are able to for Gnome applications. Although very true, the point to this is that Trolltech *can*. Sure it's a different entry that must be entered into Accounts Payable, but I think we've already established that for most serious businesses, the license cost is not a large factor. The question in this case then is... who do you pay for support. With LGPL'ed software like GTK+, you pay whoever can help you. With GPL'ed software like Qt and MySQL, you *also* pay whoever can help you. In these cases there happen to be companies behind the software development, who have chosen the GPL so that if you use their library commercially they at least get a piece of the action. > But it is "complicated" for the customers insofar as it differs > from the way it works with competing products (Gnome, OS/X, > MSDN, Solaris, etc...) But that's what I'm not seeing. How does this differ? With MSDN you pay Microsoft their fee and do what you want. With Solaris you pay Sun their fee and do what they want (for a long time you had to pay just for decent dev tools, same with MS). Likewise with Apple and OS/X. When using Qt (for *commercial* development!), you pay Trolltech. Simple. Just like companies have done for years now. In fact the odd one out in this case is GTK+ based software. There's certainly corporate support behind it with the likes of Red Hat and Novell, and all the other companies making good software with it. But there's not really that *one* company you go to for GTK+ support. Not that this is a problem per se for users of GTK+, but I don't see how this complicates commercial development using Qt either. > I'll stop now. But *please* re-read my earlier posts, with an eye > to the facts that (1) I'm not arguing that developers should > be choosing Gnome/Gtk over KDE/Qt and Noted. Although I hope you understand why it is that a lot of KDE devs have come to the defense of their chosen toolkit. ;) > (2) I'm personally very much a fan of the GPL. But that doesn't mean > that all things Troll are a good thing for KDE, either. You don't > have to be pro-Gnome to think that, perhaps, a less "complicated" > relationship with the underlying toolkit might be a good thing > for KDE. Well there are certainly things that have been in Qt that KDE has had to ignore, or to do better. Sometimes it gets recycled back into Qt (I believe Qt 4 has a lot of improvements inspired by KDE code). And it's obvious as a general rule that a desktop environment should not live and die by its toolkit. Luckily that's not an issue for KDE. It's certainly true that KDE has *had* a complicated relationship with Qt. That's not true anymore. Qt is even more Free than Gtk+ is now. Of course, this will inconvenience some people, just as there are devs out there anxiously awaiting the day that Trolltech loses their minds and BSD's Qt. ;) Trolltech can't make everyone happy, and nor should they try. KDE, on the other hand, needs to look after their best interest. Right now, I can tell you that there is no viable competition to Qt toolkit-wise for use with KDE. Since KDE is in the business of making the best Free Desktop Environment out there, this isn't a bad thing for KDE. The fact that there is a vibrant commercial development environment around Qt/KDE is icing on the cake. :)
Qt, the GPL, Business and Freedom (OfB) Posted Aug 9, 2005 0:25 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] f you're an IT manager thinking of developing an in-house desktop application, KDE is "complicated".Great, so Qt educates IT managers while GTK lets them stay ignorant. Way to go, TrollTech!
Qt, the GPL, Business and Freedom (OfB) Posted Aug 9, 2005 0:27 UTC (Tue) by huffd (guest, #10382) [Link] Ajross, You're trying too hard to be kind. These people will never make the link. The only thing they accept is total capitulation. I received a letter the other day from Eric Lafoon that made any discussion or question on the matter sound like a hate crime.
I'd love to publish the communication in it's entirety but here's a quote bye Eric Lafoon I would put fascist hate-mongers masquerading as open source advocates, like yourself, somewhere behind them. He was referring to Microsoft.
And He asks me why so much hate has been generated?
You can draw your own conclusions as I know many already have.
Qt, the GPL, Business and Freedom (OfB) Posted Aug 9, 2005 4:36 UTC (Tue) by rqosa (guest, #24136) [Link] > you don't technically have to release the software under the GPL, so having a GPLed internal application may be just fine. Exactly. So where's the problem?
|
|||||||||||