Re: GNOME & KOM/OP

[Miguel de Icaza <miguel nuclecu unam mx>]

Robert Ellsworth said:

> I hate to ask this.  And perhaps I don't know enough.  But in light of the discussion
> and sniping in the last few hours regarding object models for GNOME, it might be
> worth posting some information...
> 
> As I understand things from sources such as Stefan Westerfeld:  "The GNU Component
> Model will not support KDE/Qt (the license is not acceptable)...

I posted to the list that this is a missunderstanding from Stephan's
point of view.  The libraries that make up the component model will be
released under the GNU LGPL, which will allow linking with restrictive
libraries, such as Qt.  Even usint it in proprietary software.

> Meanwhile, you're doing a solution based on "OLE", instead of
> 'reworking' the KOM in some way.  Is this the Microsoft OLE?  (If
> not, what then?)

It is modeled after OLE2.  You can not really implement OLE2 without
providing a subset of the Win32 API, that is why it is being *modeled*
after OLE2 (ie, the interfaces, the messages, the interactions).

> Has the Evil Empire, then, put the OLE standards and all the
> documentation thereto in the public domain, under the terms of a
> GNU-acceptable license, and agreed that all further development of
> OLE shall be completely open in the public domain, again as required
> (imho) by the GNU requirements?

They have done a pretty good job at publishing all of the inner
workings in various books published both by them and by third
parties. 

But your question regarding the license does not apply as we are not
using any Microsoft code at all.  I am reading published specs by
third parties. 

> This isn't about OLE's technical superiority to something like KOM.
> On the other hand, it would seem that a lot more developers in KDE
> are concerned with workable free software than is the case at
> Micro$haft.

Can you point exactly what is wrong with COM/OLE2/Active-X or are you
just speaking out from an anti-microsoft point of view?

Miguel.