The Modularization Of KDE Frameworks 5

[phoronix]

Phoronix: The Modularization Of KDE Frameworks 5

For those curious how the KDE libraries are going to be modularized by KDE Frameworks 5, there's a new article at KDE.org covering the changes...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ2ODE

[Redi44]

Finally!

I welcome this progress Go KDE!

[Alex Sarmiento]

Every part that goes into Qt will be CLAed, thus turning non-free. One small step for KDE, a giant loss for Freedom. Sad.

The CLA should not be a problem for open source. My problem is the hypocrisy from "the community" surrounding the CLAs

[talvik]

The CLA should not be a problem for open source. My problem is the hypocrisy from "the community" surrounding the CLAs

Different people, different opinions.

From my point of view why the Ubuntu CLA is worst then the Qt, MySQL... CLA:
-It's in the core of the Linux stack.
-It "interfaces" with proprietary drivers
-It's *GPLv3 (less accepted by corporations)
-Canonical is the only stakeholder and the only "client"
-Mir won't offer stable APIs for third party
-Claims that Mir was developed for technical reasons

BTW, if you guys are going to troll stick to the articles that are at least barely related to Ubuntu.

[Alejandro Nova]

Every part that goes into Qt will be CLAed, thus turning non-free. One small step for KDE, a giant loss for Freedom. Sad.

Yes, because LGPLv3 with a BSD penal clause is bad, but GPLv3 without any penal clause is good. Sure.

What turns the Qt CLA into a good thing, in fact, is the penal clause. Without it, it's a bad thing. Get your legal facts straight.

[Alejandro Nova]

KDE makes the Qt CLA really bad because of the Free Qt agreement. It offers nothing but gives KDE the ability to damage software freedom after the free Qt is closed. Worst part about this this agreement with Qt is the exclusivity, KDE only. That puts Qt above all other, then KDE and finally there is other Qt users. Don't expect KDE to be transparent and fair about this.

Interesting. Now, please, what prevents the GNU Foundation team from closing, let's say, GCC, and selling it as a proprietary entity? I don't want to hear anything about RMS ideology or whatever. Is there any LEGAL safeguard against that?

[Alex Sarmiento]

Different people, different opinions.

From my point of view why the Ubuntu CLA is worst then the Qt, MySQL... CLA:
-It's in the core of the Linux stack.
-It "interfaces" with proprietary drivers
-It's *GPLv3 (less accepted by corporations)
-Canonical is the only stakeholder and the only "client"
-Mir won't offer stable APIs for third party
-Claims that Mir was developed for technical reasons

BTW, if you guys are going to troll stick to the articles that are at least barely related to Ubuntu.

And how is Qt or Wayland better in this regard? In fact, corporations do not need to ask permission to someone to make proprietary software with Wayland. Canonical have no record of closing software , not a single line of code. This is not the case for Intel, Samsung and wayland friends . If a third party wants to close the source code , they will have to talk with Canonical first and the other copyright holders. That means that if a contributor wants to make a deal with some third party to make proprietary software, they have to talk with Ubuntu first. There is no such control nor provision with Wayland nor QT. The Canonical CLA is required only for selected software that are the signature of Canonical initiatives . If the talk is about "being permissive with proprietary software" then Canonical is in better shape to claim they are more open source. In the other hand Wayland is better shape to claim that they are more pro corporations and proprietary software.

So your list is beyond being ridiculous. Your points 2) and 3) are even contradictory, one next to the other . You do not have to agree with the project, that is way the gnome DE have been forked 5 times. That only demonstrates nonsensical bias and hypocrisy . Check the Wayland license vs GPL3+CLA. Weight the proprietary hardware and software records of Canonical vs Intel, Samsung and other corporations that have paid developers behind Wayland.

Either way, all these licenses permit both open source and proprietary software , the mechanism is just different because every party have different ambitions, interests and strategies (sometimes competitive). Wayland,QT and MIR are open source software and you are free to modify and distribute the code. The canonical projects are not in greater risk to be close sourced than the others.


So all this ridiculous FUD against Canonical just make me laugh.

[talvik]

And how is Qt or Wayland better in this regard?

There isn't a single item I listed that Qt or Wayland checks

Canonical have no record of closing software , not a single line of code. This is not the case for Intel, Samsung and wayland friends . If a third party wants to close the source code , they will have to talk with Canonical first and the other copyright holders.

I never said anything about being able to close the source code

So your list is beyond being ridiculous. Your points 2) and 3) are even contradictory, one next to the other . You do not have to agree with the project, that is way the gnome DE have been forked 5 times. That only demonstrates nonsensical bias and hypocrisy .

2) and 3) are completely unrelated and have nothing to do with forking. 2) means that it way easier legally to bind prop drivers to MIT licensed Wayland than the GPLed MIr. 3) states a simple fact, legal teams in corporations have more objections to v3 than v2

So all this ridiculous FUD against Canonical just make me laugh.

Who did bring up CLA/Canonical... in a completely unrelated discussion?

[jospoortvliet]

KDE makes the Qt CLA really bad because of the Free Qt agreement. It offers nothing but gives KDE the ability to damage software freedom after the free Qt is closed. Worst part about this this agreement with Qt is the exclusivity, KDE only. That puts Qt above all other, then KDE and finally there is other Qt users. Don't expect KDE to be transparent and fair about this.

Wow, thin-foil-hat?!?

From the KDE e.V. website (totally in-transparent, of course):

The KDE Free Qt Foundation is an organization with the purpose of securing the availability of the Qt toolkit

• for the development of Free Software and
• in particular for the development of KDE software.

The Foundation has a license agreement with Digia and Nokia. This agreement ensures that the Qt will continue to be available under both the LGPL 2.1 and the GPL 3. Should Digia discontinue the development of the Qt Free Edition under these licenses, then the Foundation has the right to release Qt under a BSD-style license or under other open source licenses. The agreement stays valid in case of a buy-out, a merger or bankruptcy.

Explain to me (and the rest of the world) where software freedom is damaged?

I think you have a strange idea of what KDE is. Let me enlighten you: it's a group of people who collectively use the slogan 'be free' and are fanatical in their care for Software Freedom... Far more than any other free Desktop project, that's for sure... KDE e.V. for example explicitly does NOT allow companies to be members, only individuals, who ONLY can get in if they are dedicated contributors and supported and voted for by their peers. Heck, if anything - I personally consider these rules to be too strict and KDE too anti-commercial-input...

[Alejandro Nova]

Maybe you should spend a minute reading the FSF copyright assignment form?

You have the burden of proof here, remember it