UserLinux Moves Forward

Posted Feb 11, 2004 9:30 UTC (Wed) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

> the inherent contradiction between "We want
> to encourage a free desktop" and "We want to
> encourage proprietary applications".

This baffles me too. It would seem to me that the KDE/QT solution is the
best choice possible.

1) It is available GPL, for those wishing to support free software.

2) The QT portion, at least, can be licensed for proprietary-ware use, at a
reasonable cost.

This is a good thing because it provides both nominal incentive to develop
free, which we SHOULD be encouraging, and an alternative if folks are
going proprietary-ware anyway, at a quite reasonable but non-zero cost.

3) For those with the budgets, as mentioned elsewhere in the discussion, QT
is a product in its own right, with full documentation and support available,
for those commercial entities that prefer that sort of thing over the vagaries
of typical open source support, as some commercial enterprises seem to,
whether our practical experience demonstrates those same vagaries result in
better, speedier, and more substancial "on the ground" support, or not.

Of course, QT != KDE, and the QT commercial licensing possibilities !=
KDE commercial licensing possibilities either. KDE as a platform is *NOT*
available for proprietary use, AFAIK , which means if KDE is chosen as a
platform, those wishing to build on top of it for proprietary use must either be
content with the limited integration of the QT base libraries (or choose
non-integration at that level all together), or switch to GPL compatable
licensing for use of the full KDE platform.

Again, I have absolutely NO problem with that. I didn't switch to Linux and
software libre after spending a decade on MSWormOS and proprietary-ware
just so I could go back to using proprietary-ware in a different form. NO
WAY!! I haven't the faintest sympathy with those wanting to use open code
but prevented from legally doing so because they refuse to open their OWN
code. However, it seems Perens, who is after all the big mover behind
UserLinux, has other ideals. Indeed, as the quote above states, it seems very
much like he's caught by the double-talk of saying a free desktop is better,
while all the while encouraging proprietary-ware apps.

(Note that I'm not entirely anti-proprietary-ware. Folks can choose to keep
their stuff proprietary if they so desire, and I realize some will. I just have no
sympathy whatsoever with their moans and groans if the choose to do so, that
they can't borrow code that isn't theirs to begin with, without having to share
their own code on the same terms. Neither do I want ANY of my personal
support, in any way, shape, or form, whether code, volunteer work, or money
even to the penny, going to support those who would keep their own work
proprietary. They choose to do it on their own, let them do just that, STAY
on their own.)

As for the desktop wars themselves, I've stated b4 and will state here again,
my view is pretty simple. When Gnome/GTK gets the ability to do
something as simple as choosing individual interface colors, instead of
changing the entire theme, from a GUI based applet, as KDE can do with
kcmshell colors, THEN I might consider taking it seriously as a desktop.
Even the proprietary-ware MSWormOS has that! Unfortunately, it seems
that while KDE has chosen a route of empowering the users with MORE
choice, Gnome/GTK has decided to simplify even basic choices such as that
out of the user's ability to make, altogether. I've seen some say that to much
choice confuses the user and that they consider that one of the weaknesses of
GNU/Linux as a platform. I simply can't agree, as again, if I was OK with
some big corporate or developer entity making all my choices for me, I'd
have never dumped a decade of MSWormOS and other proprietary-ware
experience to switch to Linux and libre-ware.

Duncan