Welcome!

Linux Authors: Gilad Parann-Nissany, RealWire News Distribution, Colin Walker, Lori MacVittie, Unitiv Blog

Related Topics: Linux

Linux: Article

UserLinux *Will* Support KDE

UserLinux *Will* Support KDE
By Linux News Desk
Article Rating:
February 2, 2004 12:00 AM EST
Reads:
 24,803

Here is his e-mail

to the list in full:

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Sat Jan 31 18:00:44 PST 2004

>It's easy and democratic, and the reasons to exclude any QT-based
>application in UserLinux are absolutely fair: it is NOT FREE SOFTWARE
>and doesn't fit the license requirements of the distribution.
>

No, let's please not propogate this confusion.

Qt is free software, and has been for a long time now. It's GPL-ed. It used to be non-free by the Debian guidelines several years ago, that has been taken care of to my satisfaction.

It doesn't fit our licensing policies, not because it's not free, but for the same reason MySQL doesn't - it's putting the GPL in a place where we would prefer to put the LGPL so that proprietary development can take place without a commercial license.

Troll Tech uses dual licensing as a revenue strategy. They have a right to do so, and they are entirely within the ethos of the free software community in doing so.

I already have a customer asking for Perens LLC to provide commercial support for KDE on the UserLinux platform. And we will do so, even though KDE is not the chosen GUI of the UserLinux project. This is an option for any UserLinux service provider.

Thanks

Bruce

Published February 2, 2004 – Reads 24,803
Copyright © 2004 SYS-CON Media, Inc. — All Rights Reserved.
Syndicated stories and blog feeds, all rights reserved by the author.

More Stories By Linux News Desk

SYS-CON's Linux News Desk gathers stories, analysis, and information from around the Linux world and synthesizes them into an easy to digest format for IT/IS managers and other business decision-makers.

Comments (5) View Comments

Share your thoughts on this story.

Add your comment
You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.

Most Recent Comments
Robby Robson 02/05/04 05:19:53 PM EST

I maybe wrong but I do belive QT isn't fee software as define by the FSF/GNU

cause to be "free" software

you must be able to use it for "any purpose"

this gets confusing, cause if you pay a fee you can use it for any purpose, and the GPL doesn't forbid charging fees.

so it's like a company can require you to pay a distrobutions before you can acquire the program,then it's licensed under GPL , then it's free software, you can't do what you want with it.

but if the program is GPL and the company says "you can't do this or this, with out paying us a fee" it's not free software, or at least not by FSF strict defenition
Mat Dodgson 02/03/04 09:58:06 AM EST

I think the submitter has misread the original post. It does not state that UserLinux will include KDE. Only that Bruce's company, Perens LLC, will provide commercial support for KDE.
Voltaire 02/02/04 07:47:47 PM EST

> GPL in a place where we would prefer to put the LGPL
you who? Do you have a system of voting? If not why do
you not implement one first of all? (and make it public)
That issue (GPL vs LGPL) only slows down the linux spread & development. Before UL this issue could have been acceptable. When I read about companies asking for UL, and
your dropping KDE, I knew something wass wrong because the majority of those comp. ask for advanced & stable & COMPLETE & backed desktop/framework.
It's really difficult to buy this GPL vs LGPL issue.
IMO, you & Stallman & others are giving fire to your credits this way.
manyoso 02/02/04 01:52:01 PM EST

Bruce's decisions about UL and the exclusion of anything Qt has undergone numerous transformations. First, it was because Qt couldn't produce a 'cottage industry' of commercial support. When this was pointed out to be demonstrably false, Bruce retreated into the, 'but Qt isn't free' argument... knowingly choosing to obfuscate the old 'Free (libre) VS free (gratis) canard of the community. When Free Software developers called him on this reprehensible tactic, Bruce retreated into the, 'but we just can't possibly support everything' argument.

Now, Bruce is learning from real commercial companies that KDE/Qt support is mandatory and he's having to distance himself from the craving anti-Qt trolls on his own list. The sad thing? Bruce missed a valuable opportunity to really work with KDE developers and the broader community by choosing instead to cater to his own bias and that of his sympathetic community of anti-Qt trolls. Now, he has lost a lot of his credibility in the eyes of many.
StormReaver 02/02/04 01:46:38 PM EST

We all should be painfully aware of the power of preloads vs. the weakness of non-preloads. All desktop systems should be have both GNOME and KDE preloaded and ready, as neither desktop has a lock on desirable applications, and both desktops have highly useful applications.