| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Interview: Aaron Seigo, KDE Project Lead (Sirius)
Interview: Aaron Seigo, KDE Project Lead (Sirius)
Posted Mar 30, 2008 16:53 UTC (Sun) by wstephenson (subscriber, #14795)In reply to: Interview: Aaron Seigo, KDE Project Lead (Sirius) by ajross
Parent article: Interview: Aaron Seigo, KDE Project Lead (Sirius)
> The question is quite clearly (to me, anyway) referencing the fact that > KDE development must be done under the GPL, which tends to scare > business customers more than the LGPL which allows them to choose their > own license for their products. If I may correct this alleged fact, KDE is licensed under the LGPL, so you can develop for it using any license you like. The difference is that Qt is licensed under either *) the GPL (with a clause allowing a number of other open-source licenses which are not GPL compatible, see http://doc.trolltech.com/4.3/license-gpl-exceptions.html) or *) a commercial per-developer license which you pay for. Thus, you can develop *) a closed source KDE app for your business, having bought the license or *) you can develop an open source KDE app for your business for free or *) you can just use and redistribute GPL KDE and Qt as-is for your business or as part of your product for free I hope this isn't too verbose, but I keep hearing allegations of confusion and fearful proprietary businesses when KDE and Qt are mentioned, who don't have a problem integrating dual-licensed things like MySQL or GPL things like the Linux kernel, so I want to make it really easy for them.
(Log in to post comments)
Interview: Aaron Seigo, KDE Project Lead (Sirius)
Posted Mar 31, 2008 16:29 UTC (Mon) by ajross (subscriber, #4563) [Link]
Yes, all of that is correct (although I have a vague memory that at least some of the KDE3 libraries were GPL, not LGPL, but I'm no expert). The confusion you are trying to clear up with your multi-pointed argument is precicely the "problem" to which I'm referring. Enterprise customers don't view KDE as very friendly, because at first glance they can't install a distribution and develop for it legally. They need something else (a Qt license) that doesn't come from the KDE project or their linux vendor.You can't pretend this isn't a problem. Every major free desktop vendor (Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, Sun) is pushing Gnome by default, not for technical reasons, but because they can't sell KDE in the same way that they can sell Gnome. They need to partner with someone else (a giant mobile phone vendor, no less) to support KDE development. Why bother?
That is the question that I believe (strongly) the interviewer was asking Aaron, and that he dodged.
Interview: Aaron Seigo, KDE Project Lead (Sirius)
Posted Mar 31, 2008 17:02 UTC (Mon) by wstephenson (subscriber, #14795) [Link]
> although I have a vague memory that at least some of the KDE3 libraries were GPL, not LGPL, but I'm no expert. Nothing released as part of KDE 3( or 2 or 1)'s kdelibs module was GPL. You may be thinking of private GPL components that are not part of the platform. > Every major free desktop vendor and that's the problem I have with your line of argument. You say free but you're talking about proprietary development. You're turning "Free Qt is GPL" into "Companies can't develop legally with KDE". There are precedents of companies performing proprietary development with paid-for software, you'll agree, and there are also precedents of companies producing products using GPL components. Take NetworkManager or the Evolution client, for example. Or MySQL, as I said earlier. But when it's Qt or KDE you perceive it as an insurmountable problem. > Why bother? My personal answer to this question is developing with the LGPL alternative is like performing invasive dental surgery on yourself. In the dark.
Interview: Aaron Seigo, KDE Project Lead (Sirius)
Posted Mar 31, 2008 17:33 UTC (Mon) by ajross (subscriber, #4563) [Link]
OK, last post. This is going to fall off the lwn.net front page soon anyway.You say free but you're talking about proprietary development.
I never said "free" in this context, and I'm not making a principled argument (hell, I'm not even making an argument "against" KDE in any serious way). The issue is practical: I offered an interpretation to a question that Aaron received in the linked interview, and to which he didn't substantively respond (and still haven't responded).
There are precedents of companies performing proprietary development with paid-for software [and also] of companies producing products using GPL components.
Right. And there is an overwhelming precedent showing that companies performing "free desktop development" prefer to offer their products under a licensing model that matches what their customers are accustomed to seeing from other technologies. Is this good? Bad? Really, I don't care. It's a complication and a problem, and it is verifiably costing KDE customers.
And the examples of NetworkManager and Evolution seem like straw men to me. Those aren't required for development on the platform as a whole. The overwhelming majority of desktop applications, especially custom-developed proprietary ones, will never touch either. The analogy to Qt (the fundamental toolkit to which everything that displays on the desktop links, by definition) is kinda weak, IMHO.
But when it's Qt or KDE you perceive it as an insurmountable problem.
Certainly not insurmountable: LGPL Qt, or clone it. I'll happily admit that I'd love to see this happen. KDE development for non-free tools* is just a non-starter currently. It can be done, but it's not worth it to most dispassionate observers.
* Most of which are simple things: installers, configurators, query front ends, etc... They don't need or want all that multimedia goodness or desktop integration. They just have to run and be licensed appropriately. I've done several of these for my day jobs, and gadgets like pygtk work great. There's just no free(beer)ly licensed** KDE equivalent.
** And yes, I'm aware that technically GPL software is fine when used internally within a single corporate entity and doesn't need to be released publicly. Try explaining that to a software engineering manager sometime and see how long it takes for them to tell you to "just use Gtk".... developing with the LGPL alternative is like performing invasive dental surgery on yourself. In the dark.
Sure, and I'm sure it's a well supported and strongly-held opinion. But smart people disagree, and KDE needs to market to those smart people out there (and to a bunch of dumb ones who just want something that works without licensing complexity) if it wants to succeed. Technical brilliance isn't enough, and never has been.
The interviewer understood that, which is why Aaron was asked about the non-technical aspects of KDE4, specifically its lack of appeal to "Enterprise" customers.
Interview: Aaron Seigo, KDE Project Lead (Sirius)
Posted Mar 31, 2008 20:40 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Technical brilliance isn't enough, and never has been.Actually, in the free software world, it is. Take your bloody marketing rubbish somewhere else.
Interview: Aaron Seigo, KDE Project Lead (Sirius)
Posted Apr 4, 2008 16:15 UTC (Fri) by superstoned (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
Those smart ppl disagreeing are mostly managers who don't know sh*t. And the overwhelming precedent you are talking about - I'm pretty sure a lot more software has been written with Qt, both free and non-free, compared to GTK. What serious business would want to develop with something which is supported by just a handful of random ppl? Qt has a company with over 200 ppl (these days, add Nokia to that number) behind it. Way more solid. Besides, it is better documented, you get commercial support - sorry, but I'm confident companies using GTK rather than Qt are an exception.
Interview: Aaron Seigo, KDE Project Lead (Sirius)
Posted Apr 4, 2008 17:33 UTC (Fri) by ajross (subscriber, #4563) [Link]
That's just flaming. I mean, have you actually installed and used a recent version of Ubuntu, Fedora, Solaris or OpenSuSE? Are Red Hat, Novell, Sun and Canonical "just a handful of random ppl [sic]" to you? I mean, just stop. This isn't helping, and it make you look dumb. There's an overwhelming collection of software available for both desktops, and neither is going away. The insistence of KDE people to engage in this kind of "Gn0me is teh sux0rz!" flamage (either explicitly, as you and wstephenson did above, or implicitly in Aaron's interview) just drives me nuts. It's not helping anyone, least of all KDE. Please grow up, and learn to live with the rest of the community. You don't have to use Gnome if you don't want to, but after ten (TEN!) years isn't it about time you learned to live with it?