Re: KDE vs. Gnome?

[TimO <hairballmt mcn net>]

"Poletti, Don" wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 08:12:31AM -0400, Poletti, Don wrote:
> >
> > > The GTK widget set that gnome is based on is NOT GPLed its
> > > LGPL. That is the Library General public license.
> >
> > s/Library/Lesser/
> 
> I'll have to check but I thought they change it from lesser to
> library.
> 

As of 1.2.8 it is LGPL ver. 2.0 which is 'Library'.

> >
> > > This means
> > > that I can write a commercial application for GNOME (using the
> > > gnome/gtk libraries) and charge money for it.
> >
> > The GPL does not place any monetary restrictions on the sale
> > of binaries
> > built from derivative works.
> >
> > Perhaps you meant "proprietary" (closed source) instead of
> > "commercial"?
> Yes you are correct. However a lot of commecial companies will
> be unwilling to release their projects open source. Once GPLed
> I beleive anyone can grab it and start to distribute and charge for
> it. So althought there are some commercial success selling GPL code
> most companies won't go for it. I think MS might release office
> for linux (especially if the DOJ forces them) but when they charge $400
> or so a licence I don't see it going GPL.

This is the basic reason for the existence of the LGPL; it allows closed-
source binaries to be dynamically linked to existing libraries.

> 
> Question: If I buy a GPL piece of software is it licenced? Can I install
> it on more than one machine?
> 

If the software is GPL, you are paying for distribution costs and yes.

> >
> > > Now I have a few
> > > software programs that I want to release and they will be GPL
> > > but I think for GNOME to be successful the OS has to be free
> > > for commercial use.
> >
> > The GPL and the LGPL are copyright licenses, not EULAs, and
> > as such only
> > govern the act of copying.  They do not and cannot place
> > restrictions on
> > use.
> >
> > You say your apps will be GPL and yet you have not read it?  The very
> > first section in the GPL states...
> You got me. I am going on a lot of licenceing discussing like this I find
> arguing the points easier decyphering legal jargon
> 
> >
> >       "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification
> >       are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
> >       The act of running the Program is not restricted,
> 
> Could you translate this to english. for instance "running the program is
> not restricted." Does this mean the GPL does not restrict addition licence
> restriction on the program. Or the opposite that you can't add additional
> restrictions. Basically can I say one licence per machine is required.

Not if it is GPLed.  If it is dynamically linked to a LGPLed library, then
yes for the binary and no for the library which you must distribute or make
available for no more than reasonable distribution costs.

> 
> >
> > > KDE on the other hand is released QPL.
> >
> > No, the toolkit (Qt) used by KDE applications is QPL.  The
> > KDE libraries
> > are mostly LGPL and the licenses for the applications vary.
> 
> You can't write a KDE app without the toolkit so you are
> bound by it. But otherwise you are correct.
> 
> >
> > > These means its free [...]
> >
> > Beware, portions of KDE cannot be distributed legally.  The QPL is not
> > compatible with the GPL, under which some KDE applications
> > are licensed.
> 
> Yep funny how the open source community can ignore things they
> don't like. The FSF should really sue the KDE people, before
> I get a flamed for saying that let me explain. I have nothing against
> KDE and don't really want to make their lives difficult which is
> probably why nothing has been done so far but I think by not prosecuting
> them or at least asking/threatening them the legal power of GPL is weaken
> I pretty sure you lose some rights if you try selective enforcement. This
> is certainly true with trademarks, that why if you order a pepsi and all
> they
> have is coke they are very clear about it. Also I just find it hypocritcal
> to turn a blind eye towards it.
> 

Your analogy of buying Borland's compiler and not Paying MS is really
apples
and oranges.  Borland's widget set comes with the compiler (BCC.DLL) and
you pay for it.  If you're writing a proprietary program for KDE, you buy
the
widget set from TrollTech.  You don't pay anything to the OS (Gnu/Linux) or
the desktop (KDE).  As far as KDE apps meeting GPL; this must be checked on
a case by case basis.  QPL allows for redistribution in unmodified form
with
prior permission from TrollTech.  With this allowance, KDE programs can
meet the conditions of the GPL.

almost $.02 worth....  :-)

> >
> > Suggested reading:
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/
> > http://www.opensource.org/
> > http://freshmeat.net/news/2000/06/17/961300740.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnome-list mailing list
> > gnome-list@gnome.org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-list mailing list
> gnome-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list

-- 
===============
-- Tim
--------------------==============++==============--------------------
   By (the) which (will) we are sanctified through the offering of the
body of Jesus Christ once for all,  And every priest standeth daily
ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can nev-
er take away sins:  but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for
sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God;  From henceforth ex-
pecting till his enemies be made his footstool.  For by one offering he
hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.

                        -- Hebrews 10:10-14 (KJV)