Originally posted by Grawp
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Digia Merging Apple iOS Support Into Qt 5.1
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by zanny View PostKDE also has a license agreement with Digia that if ...Last edited by funkSTAR; 20 February 2013, 05:23 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by funkSTAR View PostYeah sure. "If Digia fucks software freedom we can fuck it even furter by cancelling out copyleft from GPL licensed code." WHOA A VERY NICE DEAL SECURING FREEDOM. what a load of shit.
We have an LGPL toolkit that isn't ass to use like gtk, runs on everything that matters, and uses two programming languages and a serialization format I prefer. I like it.
Comment
-
GPL, imho, isn't "software freedom". It's "software liberty"--in other words, it grants us the liberty of using code (or, liberates--makes free--that code) which would otherwise be unavailable because the modifications would not be provided back to us.
We are, of course, "Free" to use the source code which were granted access to however we want, with the "Restriction" that we must liberate the modifications we make, the same as everyone else.
Comment
-
Originally posted by funkSTAR View PostYou really have to learn the difference. Free is not the same as free software.
Originally posted by funkSTAR View PostYeah sure. "If Digia fucks software freedom we can fuck it even furter by cancelling out copyleft from GPL licensed code." WHOA A VERY NICE DEAL SECURING FREEDOM. what a load of shit.
Tell me father is f.e. Clang & LLVM eternal evil?
Explain to me why are you bothered by this, because in the case that Qt is released under BSD you can fork it under GPL. Really. This is the biggest mystery for me. You can always go BSD->GPL. Are you afraid that developers would chose BSD? If yes, isn't there a reason for it?
Are you afraid that some company could create a successful commercial framework from it? Well brace yourself, I've got some news for you. Qt was not created by your church, the FSF, but by Trolltech, a company (successful or not). It was the creators' good will and certainly some other reasons to provide a opensource version.
Comment
-
Originally posted by funkSTAR View PostYou really have to learn the difference. Free is not the same as free software.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Grawp View PostWell I really know the difference between GPL and BSD, MIT... and now I know what you mean by 'free software' collocation and it's tricky and ugly because it's less free.
I think that you don't dislike Digia in particular. You just don't like public domain! (at all). You're like Richard Stallman's preacher!
According to fsf shouldn't the LGPL they use today be worse than the old GPL release. As I understand it according to fsf you should only use LGPL if you need it to compete with some "evil" libs. Your goal should be to release libs with GPLLast edited by Akka; 21 February 2013, 08:37 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Akka View PostAs I understand it Stallman has no problem with Qt after they released the gpl version many years ago.
According to fsf shouldn't the LGPL they use today be worse than the old GPL release. As I understand it according to fsf you should only use LGPL if you need it to compete with some "evil" libs. Your goal should be to release libs with GPL
For software freedom, the GPL means you can't ever think about using it without staying open, but that just means a bunch of commercial entities won't look at it. In the context of the qt project itself, LGPL is great because it means anyone modifying needs to contribute back improvements (except for Digia, but if they stopped updating the LGPL qt KDE by contract gets the proprietary qt under a BSD license they can release themselves to keep it open).
Comment
-
Originally posted by zanny View PostStop quantifying one license better or worse than another. They serve different purposes. LGPL means that any modifications anyone but Digia makes to qt need to be made publicly available. GPL means that anything using the code must be made publicly available beyond just the project itself. As a gui framework, it is prohibitive to ask commercial businesses to use the GPL, and in the case of qt, they might very much prefer the commercial license just to "be safe" in not violating the LGPL tenants about modification of qt itself.
For software freedom, the GPL means you can't ever think about using it without staying open, but that just means a bunch of commercial entities won't look at it. In the context of the qt project itself, LGPL is great because it means anyone modifying needs to contribute back improvements (except for Digia, but if they stopped updating the LGPL qt KDE by contract gets the proprietary qt under a BSD license they can release themselves to keep it open).
Comment
Comment