I always thought Gnome was started because Qt/Kde were not considered free enoughYes, historically GTK was (at least in part) a response to licensing issues with Qt. Most (but not all) of those issues have meanwhile been resolved.
given the fact that Qt is GPL and you're can use basically any other FOSS license in conjunction with Qt as long as you keep providing the source, I don't get the point about licensing differences.The problem is that you can't use all the FOSS licenses, you depend on Nokia agreeing to your using them. For example, last I heard the AGPL wasn't permissible (but perhaps this has changed?), and when the GPL4 comes out, there is no guarantee that Qt apps can be written using it. Should Nokia become less cooperative than Trolltech has historically been, this might be very problematic. It's hard to gauge how likely this danger is - probably not very much - but the risk is large enough to cause concern.
I think a free desktop should be all about free software and shouldn't worry too much about how much proprietary developers have to pay for a development license.I tend to agree with this, for the most part, but as I argued above the issue that concerns me is that Qt's licensing has potential risks for FOSS developers. If Nokia legally committed itself to allowing Qt apps to be written in any OSI or FSF-approved license, I would be happy, but that is not the case.
In my opinion gnome should come with a few Qt apps (also KDE should come with a few gtk apps, but that's a different story) if these applications blend sufficiently well into the 'alien' desktop environment...Well, I'm in agreement - we should all collaborate as much as possible, when it makes sense. The issue is that (sadly) generally the apps don't blend in seamlessly. But perhaps this will improve in time.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds