Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME Gets A Log Viewer For Systemd's Journal

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    I didn't claim it specified a requirement, I said they used the GNU libc, which is accurate for most Linux distributions. Including the one funkstar runs.
    systemd devs silently assume it get's built and runs in a gnu environment. It uses GNU extensios to libc making it fail even to build under e.g. uclibc rendering systemd unusable under embedded systems...

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by schmalzler View Post
      systemd devs silently assume it get's built and runs in a gnu environment. It uses GNU extensios to libc making it fail even to build under e.g. uclibc rendering systemd unusable under embedded systems...
      Thank you. This whole anti-CLA jihad is just an excuse for anti-KDE bashing.

      The crucial thing with copyright assignment and licensing agreements is whether you trust the entity holding the copyright. With the FSF, I have no doubts. With Oracle, I have plenty of doubts. With someone like Digia you don't really know, but there are safeguards in place, so that's OK.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by schmalzler View Post
        systemd devs silently assume it get's built and runs in a gnu environment. It uses GNU extensios to libc making it fail even to build under e.g. uclibc rendering systemd unusable under embedded systems...
        Certain embedded usage, as systemd is used on embedded already. Only the ones relying on a different library will then fail. Anyway, learned something new, cool

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Honton View Post
          move on and accept
          Thanks, but no thanks.

          Originally posted by Honton View Post
          the new standard
          You wish.
          Last edited by prodigy_; 10-02-2013, 04:29 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Honton View Post
            KDE is seeing a steep decline anyway, so who cares?
            Yes, it is alarming. They will have to backtrack and bring back the classic mode before everyone jumps ship.....

            What safeguards?
            How are the safeguards activated?
            What does thes safeguards protect?
            http://www.kde.org/community/whatisk...foundation.php
            Last edited by pingufunkybeat; 10-02-2013, 06:48 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Honton View Post
              Oh that deal. That is a joke. It gives KDE the right to re-license the LGPLed free version for linux IF Digia forgets to tag a new release once a year and don't so in timely manner after a notification period. So how should this prevent Digia from becoming the next Oracle, and why should anyone care for an year old version of Qt which is relicensed to something permissive and non-Free?
              It kills any incentive for Digia to close off Qt, that's what it does. It would make it impossible to license Qt, destroying Digia's business model.

              Nothing would change for KDE, which is LGPL and builds on an LGPL toolkit, which would additionally become BSD-licensed.

              That deal elegantly removes the danger of Qt being closed. You know that, that's why you are getting so agitated every time somebody mentions is. Qt is Free, as in FSF free, and the community is happy to have such a tool at their disposal.

              You are a loud fanboy and a disgrace to the GNOME community, which has been actively cooperating with the KDE community and working on common standards for years now. Nobody needs your holy war.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                Nobody needs your holy war.
                His epeen seems to need it.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Too many if's, Mr Honton. And you were told many times, especially in your infamous "Gnome kills Kde" thread, that your POV is way beyond reality. Qt is free software. It is under open governance, developed in the public. Since that happened there were more frequent releases than back when Trolltech drove development. So no sign of closed source future.
                  And I would like to see a quote, where you read about that "one year of no releases".
                  Furthermore you should be happy: As KDE is dying, you can wait for the day that there will be no KDE release anymore. Probably next year? (Take your OLOH graph for KDE contributors and continue the declining line, that should give you a quite accurate date). That will be the day where you can be sure that kde is dead. And then, Mr. Honton, Digia has the right to not release an Open Source Qt anymore. (Agreement get's invalid)

                  The fact that you did not get this shows me only one thing: You never read the agreement. (Or you can't get facts or interpret them in a logical manner )

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    [QUOTE=Honton;362012]
                    Originally posted by Thodmas
                    True. And now Im just waiting on Pingu to study law so he can read and understand the agreement that KDE is hiding away. Because thats how KDE is rolling. Shady Qt CLA and even more shady agreements.
                    So do you have studied law or do you just pretend to have that insight you expect from others? As I have said before, your opinion (and nothing more it is, in fact) on this is meaningless, unless you can prove that you are a studied lawyer (specialized in copyright or software licenses would be fine).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Honton View Post
                      Read the section marked 1 on the picture. How can anyone assert that this is about the whole Qt and not Qt under free free licenses?
                      So, please delight us and show us the difference between the two. Seeing your vast knowledge about the topic this shouldn't be a problem, I would guess.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Honton View Post
                        "Qt" is defined as Qt for the KDE X windows system(Not Wayland for now). "Qt Free Edition" is "Qt" under the free licenses. It is written above my marking number 1. You really should read the agreement instead of making up conclusions. If your cognitive capacity can't handle such a burden Im here to assist you.
                        And your point is?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          This really doesn't matter either way since Qt is available on more platforms and the EFL's are lighter and has the same features as GTK+, so really there's not much of a reason for GTK+ these days.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Honton View Post
                            People should stop believing lies about the Free Qt agreement. First step is to read the agreement and realize it only covers the already free version of Qt for a few linux systems not including Wayland.
                            And you should really read the link mgraesslin posted in your own infamous "KDE kills Gnome" thread (or was it the other way arround?). A long mailing list thread about the very same topic. And they see it quite relaxed

                            BTW.: You still did not tell me why in your little scary world) it is OK to hard depend on Apple WebKit but not on Qt...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Let me help you:

                              https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-c...q3/000146.html
                              I will quote and add some extra outlining to preserve you from reading the wrong text...
                              As a board member of the KDE Free Qt Foundation, I will give some quick
                              answers here while I consider how to communicate these facts to the wider
                              public. Please feel free to quote my answer, or to link to this email in a
                              mailing list archive.

                              1. The KDE Free Qt Foundation aims to protect all developers using the Free
                              Software called Qt. The contracts are therefore not limited to KDE. As one of
                              the largest volunteer-driven Free Software communities, KDE is well placed to
                              be the stewards of the interests of Free Software developers in general.

                              2. The LGPL licence of all current Qt releases allows use in both proprietary
                              and Free Software applications and contains to platform-specific restrictions.
                              This licence grant cannot be retroactively taken away by Digia. In addition,
                              the KDE Free Qt Foundation can also relicense Qt under a different open source
                              licence (such as BSD) for general, even more permissive use. The Foundation
                              agreed not do so as long as Digia continues to release Qt as LGPL and with
                              support for at least desktop Linux and Android (“Qt Free Edition”).

                              3. The contract with Nokia and Digia covers desktop Linux (X11, Wayland can be
                              easily added in the future
                              ). Digia has signed a second agreement which also
                              includes Android
                              (Necessitas) and is identical to the first agreement in all
                              other aspects. Both agreements prohibit Digia from releasing a sub-standard
                              version of Qt as “Qt Free Edition”. In other words: The desktop Linux version
                              cannot be incomplete compared to the Windows and Mac versions, and the Android
                              version cannot be incomplete compared to the other mobile platforms.

                              4. The differences between the various platforms have massively decreased
                              during the last years. The same codebase is used for the various platforms,
                              with minimal platform-specific code paths. This makes it more easy for third
                              parties to provide support for platforms not officially included in Digia’s LGPL
                              releases
                              . We have opened discussions on whether to include the Windows and
                              MacOS platforms (first with Nokia, then with Digia), but we have not reached
                              any decisions yet given the legals pitfalls caused by the proprietary nature
                              of these platforms. For example, we do not know whether Microsoft or Apple
                              will prohibit or punish the development of LGPL-licensed libraries
                              for their
                              platforms (cf. AppStore rules).
                              Please feel free to contact me if you have
                              thoughts on this topic.

                              The legal framework of the KDE Free Qt Foundation is now more than 15 years
                              old (see http://kde.org/community/whatiskde/k...foundation.php).
                              During this time, Trolltech was bought by Nokia, and Nokia sold Qt to Digia.
                              We had anticipated such contingencies and included very strong legal language
                              in the agreement and managed to ensure the continued validity of the
                              protection in all such cases. In addition to protecting Free Software users of
                              Qt, we have also accompanied various positive evolutions (relicensing to LGPL,
                              inclusion of the Android platform, and especially the open governance of the
                              Qt Project).


                              I invite developers using (or potential using) Qt to contact me with comments,
                              doubts, questions or constructive feedback on our work.
                              Now that this was finally cleared you can tell us why you support a DE, that uses (and actively gives back to) an evil company: why is it OK to use and support WebKit-GTK?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Honton View Post
                                Thank you quoting the text. They say like me:
                                Only Free Qt for a limited number of Linux platforms is covered. Nothing else, and Wayland is excluded for now.
                                So? The bulk of Qt is covered, and the point of the agreement isn't to free all of Qt from the GPL in case Digia misbehaves. The point is to discourage Digia from offering closed "value-added" Qt versions, since if Qt gets a permissive license due to Digia's (in)actions, everyone else has the opportunity to make closed versions of Qt as well (even if they may have to rewrite a little bit of platform-specific code).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X