| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
LWN's Obviously Incorrect 2004 Predictions
LWN's Obviously Incorrect 2004 Predictions
Posted Dec 30, 2003 18:33 UTC (Tue) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341)In reply to: LWN's Obviously Incorrect 2004 Predictions by gallir
Parent article: LWN's Obviously Incorrect 2004 Predictions
Qt, however, which is the underlying toolkit KDE is based and built upon, is not available under the LGPL. I am not an expert on copyright law, and I cannot say whether this actually means something, but it *will* create fear, uncertainty and doubt unless we get a definite statement from the licensing experts.
(Log in to post comments)
It's an issue for closed-source developers.
Posted Dec 30, 2003 22:30 UTC (Tue) by goonie (subscriber, #4252) [Link]
While who knows how a court might interpret things, and I'm no lawyer, the intent of the LGPL and GPL when applied to licenses is clear. You can't legally link closed-source code to a GPL library, and then distribute the linked code. You can link closed-source code to an LGPL'd library and distribute the results (with some restrictions - the easiest way to meet those is to use dynamic linking). The Qt library is GPL'd, so if you want to link closed-source code to it and distribute that code, you need to make alternative arrangements with the Qt copyright holders, Troll Tech. All the GNOME libraries are LGPL'd, so there are no such requirements for it.Therefore, from a licensing point of view, GNOME is a better option for proprietary developers than KDE.As proprietary applications will be with us for some time, it remains my view that GNOME is the less risky option.
It's an issue for closed-source developers.
Posted Dec 31, 2003 0:32 UTC (Wed) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link]
Therefore, from a licensing point of view, GNOME is a better option for proprietary developers than KDE.Well, I've worked on big proprietary C++ project and the GUI guys used Qt. I don't know their reasons, but managers tend to like software with support contracts - and the Trolltech developers created some patches just for us when we've found bugs in Qt.
It's an issue for closed-source developers.
Posted Dec 31, 2003 2:02 UTC (Wed) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link]
Do I actually *directly* link to the Qt libraries when I build a KDE application, though?
It's an issue for closed-source developers.
Posted Dec 31, 2003 5:15 UTC (Wed) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]
These days, yes you do. Run ldd on your binary.
It's an issue for closed-source developers.
Posted Jan 5, 2004 19:38 UTC (Mon) by tbird20d (subscriber, #1901) [Link]
ldd links the application, then reports the linkages.The application is not linked until runtime (or until you run ldd),
which still begs the question of whether it is directly linked or not.
Linked, not linked - what's the difference ?
Posted Jan 8, 2004 22:04 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Why the hell it's even discussed here ? It's not important if Qt is linked directly to application or not. It is important if it's derived work or not. And here answer is clear: you can not build kdelibs or KDE application wothout Qt, you program need deep understanding of Qt internals to work so it's clearly derived work. End of story. Is it linked or loaded via dlopen() it's irrelevant.
It's an issue for closed-source developers.
Posted Jan 8, 2004 3:19 UTC (Thu) by elanthis (subscriber, #6227) [Link]
It doesn't matter if you directly link or not. If you link anything to the GPL, it becomes implicitly GPLd. If the LGPL library depends on the GPL library, it must be under the terms of the GPL. Therefor, any apps that link to the LGPL library are bound by the same terms as if they linked against the GPL library. At least, this is how it was explained to me by the FSF a few years ago when I had GPL vs BSD linking questions for them.
LWN's Obviously Incorrect 2004 Predictions
Posted Jan 1, 2004 14:08 UTC (Thu) by leonb (subscriber, #3054) [Link]
Qt licensing fees are not royalties.You buy a per seat developer license.
Then you can produce and distribute proprietary
Qt applications without further payment.
See <http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licensing.html>.
The cost of a Qt license is a very small part of the cost of a developer,
just like his computer, his chair, or his office space.
Really not a big deal when one is serious about making
a proprietary program.
LWN's Obviously Incorrect 2004 Predictions
Posted Jan 4, 2004 17:20 UTC (Sun) by bockman (subscriber, #3650) [Link]
Thse are exactly the words I would have posted ifyou did not :-)
And I am a little disappointed thet LWN used the IMO incorrect term
'royalties'.
However, a software factory thinking to build over QT a
proprietary product with a long life span still face the
'strategical' risk of depending from Trolltech for the evolution
of their product. Say that in two years they want to make
a new release of the product, but in the meanwhile QT licence
is changed to something more costly (because Trolltech needs money, or it has been bought by a more greedy company). They will have to do
one of the following:
- Use the already purchased two-years old toolkit
for the new release of their product;
- Agree with the new QT licence
- Open source their software
None of these is a pleasant option for developers of close-source applications.
Now I believe this is a relatively small and maneageable risk, but it is
still something that might drive closed-source developers away from
the QT toolkit.
LWN's Obviously Incorrect 2004 Predictions
Posted Jan 8, 2004 18:32 UTC (Thu) by cloose (subscriber, #5066) [Link]
But this risk isn't new to closed-source developers (especially comingfrom windows). There is always the chance that the next version of the
used toolkit or tool will be more expensive or even gone (Borland Kylix
anyone). Windows developers are almost used to rewrite their software once
in a while (Win32->MFC->.Net). :-)
And Qt has to compete with other toolkits (Gtk, wxWindow) so there is a
good chance that the price will stay reasonable.
LWN's Obviously Incorrect 2004 Predictions
Posted Jan 5, 2004 22:24 UTC (Mon) by kevinbsmith (subscriber, #4778) [Link]
> The cost of a Qt license is a very small part of the cost of a developer,> just like his computer, his chair, or his office space.
> Really not a big deal when one is serious about making
> a proprietary program.
True, *if* you're working for a software development in California, USA, where a developer might cost you US$ 200k per year including benefits and overhead.
However, in a country where a developer costs US$ 1k per year, a $1k license is a very big deal.
And for an individual anywhere who wants to develop closed-source freeware or low-cost shareware, it's also a big deal.
LWN's Obviously Incorrect 2004 Predictions
Posted Jan 8, 2004 9:45 UTC (Thu) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]
> However, in a country where a developer costs US$ 1k per year, a $1k
> license is a very big deal.
These countries do not exist. Don't believe your manager who outsources to India that they really are that cheap. A developer there costs US$ 40k per year. You may find people who manage to live with $1k earnings a year, but those are farmers who build their own huts and grow their own food (the pig farmers from Elbonia in Dilbert come in mind - "Tomorrow, I'll be the computer" ;-).
LWN's Obviously Incorrect 2004 Predictions
Posted Jan 9, 2004 5:37 UTC (Fri) by xnihilanthx (guest, #17991) [Link]
> A developer there costs US$ 40k per year.Rubbish. Entry level salaries are about $6K per annum if you happen to work for a 'respectable software company'. If you're really good and / or lucky you're making $16K after 3 years. But $40K?
I *hope* the farmers make at least $1K...
Software costs around the world
Posted Jan 9, 2004 8:12 UTC (Fri) by kevinbsmith (subscriber, #4778) [Link]
Even if your $40k number is correct (and it seems to be off by an order of magnitude), Qt still presents problems for lots of folks. I recall seeing that the license is something like $1500 US per year. In less-developed countries, that is a *huge* amount of money. Consider this:http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue8_12/ghosh/
The chart shows how much a copy of WinXP with Office costs in other countries, using GDP as a measure of relative "costs". I don't know how valid that measure is, but at least it's a starting point for the discussion. In the US, WinXP/Office is listed in the chart as costing $560, which is about one third as much as a Qt license.
So we can see that a one-year, one-developer Qt license has a relative cost in Costa Rica and Croatia of over $10k. In Indonesia and Cameroon it costs the equivalent of nearly $100k. In several countries it's over $300k, and in Ethiopia its about $600k. That is for a *single seat* license for *one year*. No big deal, you said?
Even in the US, $1500 per year is a lot of money for a part-time, independent software consultant.
The Qt proprietary license model works great for high-end software development organizations, and for people willing to release their code under the GPL. It fails completely for individual entrepreneurs in wealthy countries, anyone writing non-GPL code in less-developed countries, and any volunteer programmers anywhere who want to create non-GPL code.
TrollTech is not evil. Qt is a nice toolkit. It just isn't economically viable as "the standard" toolkit for all people in all places. Therefore, I personally would rather see GTK+ become "the standard" instead of Qt.