Clasen: Introducing GtkInspector
Posted May 20, 2014 15:07 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
I don't think any proprietary-CLA'd software can take a place as a standard component on Linux because of this, but maybe I'm wrong. It doesn't seem to be working out for Canonical though...
Posted May 21, 2014 3:31 UTC (Wed) by torquay (guest, #92428)
QT is open source, not proprietary. Also, QT is already a standard component in Linux-based OSes, via the LSB. It's also in Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, etc since forever.
This entire ideological aversion to CLA'd software is bordering on insane. The software is still open source, which is of primary importance, not secondary. Using GTK when there is a known and significantly better alternative is cutting off one's nose to spite the face (ie. self destructive). By choosing GTK, a developer in effect cuts themselves off from a considerably more vibrant development community, a better maintained toolkit, more stability, saner use, better documentation, etc etc.
You can't chage reality: GTK, despite the lack of a CLA, is in a much worse state than QT, whose main developer (Digia) has a CLA. The onus is hence on the anti-CLA brigade to practically demonstrate (not just theoretical mumbo jumbo) that CLA is actively harmful in this case. The evidence is pointing in the other direction: CLA is actually very useful in this case.
Posted May 21, 2014 14:34 UTC (Wed) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
But the point is that with a CLA it can be taken proprietary at any time, that's the whole point of having one.
> You can't chage reality: GTK, despite the lack of a CLA, is in a much worse state than QT, whose main developer (Digia) has a CLA. The onus is hence on the anti-CLA brigade to practically demonstrate (not just theoretical mumbo jumbo) that CLA is actively harmful in this case. The evidence is pointing in the other direction: CLA is actually very useful in this case.
That seems like a claim that software, without a gatekeeper company with a CLA selling proprietary versions, can't be successful. That is a different discussion. The point I've been trying to make, that I haven't seen acknowledged, is that, even given the number of contributors to Qt, there are an even wider array of potential contributors who abstain because of the CLA, and even provide roadblocks preventing Qt from achieving the market dominance it may be capable of, by funding competing projects.
Look at the recent sweep of systemd across the major distributions, if it was CLAd to RedHat do you think it still would have been successful? It was successful because the project did the hard work of adjusting to the needs of all the participants, supporting Debian and SuSE-isms when needed, instead of claiming they were doing it wrong and that their contributions weren't welcome.
Posted May 21, 2014 14:53 UTC (Wed) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
And if that happens, the KDE Free Qt contract triggers and we get a BSD release of the last non-proprietary Qt release. Where do you think companies would go then?
Posted May 21, 2014 15:33 UTC (Wed) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
If the core developers do leave then they might form another company or disperse into other companies and continue to work on a fully-functional, Free toolkit. If one group or the other can't recruit a critical mass of developers then maybe all available versions bitrot or go on life support with a slow trajectory of features and fixes.
Maybe the worst case is if the development community splits into multiple proprietary forks, since with BSD license there is no enforcement of a software commons to collect contributions, then they probably all die over time, failing to achieve a critical mass of developers or customers, with features maybe folding in when individual forks go belly-up, or being lost.
Almost any scenario I can think of involves there being less developers working on any particular fork so as a consequence development must slow down (or stop), compared to a non-forked scenario, and upheaval for anyone who has a core dependency on the toolkit. It's probably a stronger dependency and harder to switch than MySQL/MariaDB to PostgreSQL for example.
If you are lucky then if there is a fork like this the bulk of the developers go to the Free software version, which then supplants the proprietary fork and becomes standard like LibreOffice vs. StarOffice, but you can't always rely on being lucky.
Posted May 22, 2014 8:20 UTC (Thu) by niner (subscriber, #26151)
The Gtk developers may loose interest in their toolkit anytime as well. Same as they have already lost interest in really supporting non-Gnome applications and other operating systems than Linux.
I agree that the optimal situation would be to have a CLA-free Qt. But that's right now not an option. Even with the CLA Qt has better technology, better documentation, better maintenance, more independent contributors and more contributors overall. The choice is pretty much obvious.
Posted May 22, 2014 15:31 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
Posted May 22, 2014 17:31 UTC (Thu) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185)
Posted May 22, 2014 8:43 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164)
Reality is different, again: 40% of contributions to Qt come from outside of Digia. Which, as was pointed out before, on its own already represents more contributions than GTK gets as a whole - making a Qt-without-Digia still a healthier ecosystem than GTK ever will be.
Sorry, but this is frustrating. You and Rashul are arguing that due to a hypothetical and unlikely risk, which if taken place would still put Qt far ahead of GTK, we should not rely on Qt. You argue that the CLA has all kinds of horrible effects (resulting in 'nobody else would want to contribute to it') while the current reality CLEARLY proves you wrong, I can keep quoting it: about 40% of the code in Qt comes from outside of Digia. That number makes all these hypothetical anti-CLA arguments moot. There is a huge business around Qt and I can so name you three independent parties which would be able to maintain Qt all on their own if all Digia offices would be simultaneously hit by a meteor tonight (or tomorrow, rather, there's a great shower coming, you're lucky if you're in the US. Watch it around 3PM Eastern time and tell me what a sucker I am for living in Berlin).
If Digia hadn't bought Qt from Nokia, don't you think KDE, KDAB and the many other companies and communities building on top of it would've set up a foundation and kept the LGPL version alive? There are 500.000 developers using Qt out there. If only 5% of those gave a crap that Qt would go proprietary, the project would have orders of magnitude more resources than GTK.
I have a feeling you're still stuck in the unclear Qt licensing situation in the end of the 90's. But things have changed. Qt is a hugely successful open project now, GTK can't even see the tail lights anymore. KDE is splitting up its libraries, having upstreamed half to Qt and making the other half available as independent parts to Qt developers, hoping to ride the wave of Qt success.
Meanwhile, today, GTK just makes Linux look bad.
This is NOT against GNOME: GNOME SHELL doesn't make Linux look bad, not by a long shot. I don't use it, it isn't for me, but that does not mean I don't recognize that it is a great looker, exploring new interaction patterns, building innovative interfaces. I appreciate and applaud that. Of course I can't for the love of $DEITY imagine why that requires a custom-build toolkit, but fine. Just stop telling the rest of the world to build anything on Shell or that toolkit, really, it is a BAD IDEA.
Posted May 22, 2014 15:48 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
This is not a point that I am talking about, I agree that the Qt ecosystem has a lot of developers. Clearly I haven't been able to communicate what hair I am splitting here. The point is that there clearly exists an ecosystem around GTK who haven't chosen to use Qt and that if you want to convert those users and bring them into the Qt ecosystem then you will have to find out what their concerns are which are preventing them from joining and address them. One of those concerns seems to be the CLA. Talking about how big the Qt ecosystem currently is and how successful it has been doesn't change the fact that there is another (smaller) ecosystem out there blocking any kind of universal consensus in the Linux desktop space.
Maybe an analogy can help (or make it less clear 8-). A desktop software application which is only in English can have a large, vibrant development and user community and be wildly successful, but there will always be a part of the marketplace where telling potential users/developers to "learn English" is not going to be helpful, so there will always be a percentage of the marketplace you are cutting out by that decision.
Posted May 22, 2014 18:46 UTC (Thu) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
Posted May 22, 2014 20:09 UTC (Thu) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185)
Actually, is there any recently started project that picked GTK? Any project that felt, "Yo! users are in need of XYZ, let's give it them asap, so, the obvious choice is to start coding it in C and GTK!"?
Or even, "Yo! We're not giving our users what they need, we're not making progress as quick as we could, let's port to GTK, yay!"?
Posted May 22, 2014 20:37 UTC (Thu) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
Posted May 31, 2014 14:36 UTC (Sat) by Velmont (guest, #46433)
Posted May 26, 2014 15:00 UTC (Mon) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164)
But the point is that with a CLA it can be taken proprietary at any time, that's the whole point of having one.
... and this piece of nonsense keeps irking me every time I read it. What crazy business model would that be, developing something for years in the open just so you can, some day, suddenly (after a super special code commit or something) close it up?
You don't seem to get the business model of companies like Qt (and others). Some of their customers' legal departments insists on not having any (l/a)GPL software. Fine, they pay for that 'privilege', that helps keep Digia paying hundreds of people to work on that software. But they do not, ever, intend to stop developing in the open. Why would they abandon a successful, smart business model where they work with a wide community of contributors to build great software? Again, Qt - 40% contributions outside of Digia. How stupid does one have to be to loose that?
I totally get that there is a fear that a potential, future owner would do that. Eg a Oracle that buys Qt. But THAT is exactly where the KDE Free Qt Foundation comes in so that risk is mitigated. And it could still be a realistic fear if this was throw-over-the-wall open source, like Android. But it isn't - Qt is developed fully in the open. Quite some sections are now maintained by people outside of Digia - Digia engineers have to engage these community members to get their code into Qt. Just as it should be.
You're just spreading FUD with this. And I'm quite sure you're aware of that, too, I'm sure I didn't tell you anything new.
Copyright © 2018, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds