The revised Agreement continues to honour the original purposes of the Foundation. In particular, should Trolltech ever discontinue making regular releases of the Qt Free Edition for any reason – including a buyout or merger of Trolltech or the liquidation of Trolltech – the Qt Free Edition will be released under the BSD license and optionally under one or more other Open Source Licenses.
Trolltech & KDE Free Announce Amended Agreement
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Beautiful.
why use bsd licence?
everyone could take qt, make another library and sale it without the source….
Why is it such a problem if they use the BSD license to do that?
You can find the scanned pages of the agreement at http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php
Fair enough really – more generally, worth mentioning:
“Maintaining a close connection with the Open Source community is essential to the success of Trolltech,” said Matthias Ettrich, director of software tools development at Trolltech. “The amended Agreement provides an excellent framework for a continued and mutually rewarding relationship between Trolltech and the KDE Free Qt Foundation.”
Seems ok
Could KDE still provide binaries and such, and just not produce any new ones? Or is it no using a Trolltech development tool? Or…no using QT code at all?
Just curious!
Also, was there ever any contingency plan for the worst case scenario with QT & KDE?
>The BSD license is the American version of freedom where free actually means free.
Give me a break. LOL! The BSD license is the license where a company like Microsoft can take your idea, put it into their product, make changes and updates to it and never even tell the original developer. Only credit the original developer will get is a tag line in a couple of files.
I don’t see BSD UNIX products growing from their usage in Windows that’s for sure.
Hobgoblin, you’re either dislexic or you don’t grasp what the licenses are about. Thanks to the BSD license, part of the core functionality of Windows NT (and subsequent OSes, e.g. Win 2000, XP, etc) are based on BSD code that was taken, modified and sold sans source.
It isn’t that long ago that it was standard practice that when you bought something you were given the source code too, so that if you found a bug or wanted a modification you could do so yourself. Thanks to people focusing on the sales percentages this practice has gone by the wayside (even for much web development work, thanks to compilers) so if you find a severe bug in your $20,000 system at 2am on a Friday night you can’t call in the company geek to fix it, you have to wait until the following week for the authors to get to work, if they’ll even do anything at that point.
With the GPL, when you are given the binaries to code that is based (in part or in whole) on GPL code you must also be given access to the source code, otherwise the sellers are in breach of contract and can be sued. Simple as that. Yes, it does “spread” but again this is a good thing.
Having the code gives you control over you’re data, whatever it is for. Not having the code puts you at the begging mercy of the authors.
Hobgoblin, go read the licenses then try to debate them.
Damien
Well said.
ESR is a Libertarian, isn’t he? Anyway, weren’t you the guy who used the phrase “European commie pinko socialist version of freedom.” I think you’re the neo-con reactionary. The GPL just says, if you want to redistribute (not just use, but redistribute) a products based upon my code, you have to give that code to the people you redistribute to. If says, you have to give others the same rights I gave you, if you want to use my code. What is wrong about that? Why should a corporation be able to take a hobbyist’s code and get rich off of it? They have no right to that. If anything, the GPL strengthens the traditional sense of intellectual property and personal ownership. Hardly “pinko commie socialist version of freedom.” More like “rugged lone programmer tames the corporate/government beast that threatens individual freedom version of freedom.”
Hobgoblin, you’re either dislexic or you don’t grasp what the licenses are about. Thanks to the BSD license, part of the core functionality of Windows NT (and subsequent OSes, e.g. Win 2000, XP, etc) are based on BSD code that was taken, modified and sold sans source.
And what is exactly bad about that? I am actually GRATEFUL that they took the BSD stack. Imagine what could have happened if they didn’t had that source. They could have developed their own “standard” protocol (something like MS/IP) like Novell did with IPX/SPX.
With the GPL, when you are given the binaries to code that is based (in part or in whole) on GPL code you must also be given access to the source code, otherwise the sellers are in breach of contract and can be sued. Simple as that. Yes, it does “spread” but again this is a good thing.
And why it is? Empty, worthless statements like that makes me mad.
Having the code gives you control over you’re [sic] data, whatever it is for. Not having the code puts you at the begging mercy of the authors.
Having the code is completely pointless when you don’t know how to read it. So you have your control over your data if you know how to read it… Otherwise, you’re still at the begging mercy of the authors.
I don’t hate the GPL nor the BSD but I think the BSD licence is the best one for QT (in case they’re sold out). Everybody will benefit from it, including software companies.
Anyway, weren’t you the guy who used the phrase “European commie pinko socialist version of freedom”?
No, that was Hobgoblin. And yes, ESR is a social libertarian, though I don’t know if he is more right or left on economic issues.
BTW, you should all stop using the simplistic “right/left” paradigm. I suggest you check this site out:
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.html
Personally, I’m Libertarian Left (-6 on both axis).
OMG ! A troll
Yes, GPL is a sort of socialist license : The work will profit to everybody.
And the BSD license is a liberal one : everybody can do what he wants with it.
A French proverb says : “La liberté de chacun s’arrête là où commence celle des autres” (each one’s freedom stops where the others’one starts). I agree with this, that’s why I prefer GPL
Quote:
Having the code is completely pointless when you don’t know how to read it. So you have your control over your data if you know how to read it… Otherwise, you’re still at the begging mercy of the authors.
———————————
You do have the ability to hire independent developers to modify software with a Free Software lisence, though. That can make a big difference. You aren’t at the mercy of one company that can discriminate against you for any reason. You have the same freedoms as the rest of the users and even the original author in some ways. Having access to code, and ensuring that others will in the future by using licenses like the GPL, prevents monopolies and encourages innovation.
I didn’t see anyone claiming the political spectrum was purly linear.
The one irksome thing about the GPL isn’t anything in the license itself, but rather in the clouded minds of the zealots who act as if it were a religion. The whole idea that source code can only be free if you accept my vision (or version) of freedom is rediculous, especially when your particular version (or vision) of freedom comes with so many strings attatched that you almost need to be a law student to fully grasp all the details.
When I write code, it’s BSDL’d, and if someone, anyone, even Microsoft or (shudder) SCO decide to make a closed source copy, extended or not, well, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. My version is still free and open source, and I’m not about to put too many restrictions on code that could well be useful to the poor folks who need to use Windows or whatever else.
I find it immensely disturbing that those who supposedly believe in “freedom” to share or to do are so quick to champion an ideology that is proving to be no less divisive and pro-IP as the corporations that these people are trying so hard to make irrelevant. But whatever. People are small, silly little creatures in general, and if they are content to divide up their small little world into even smaller little pieces then “more power to them.”
Hey!!!… the article at http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.html
don’t put Fidel at their graphics… LOL
“When I write code, it’s BSDL’d, and if someone, anyone, even Microsoft or (shudder) SCO decide to make a closed source copy, extended or not, well, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. My version is still free and open source, and I’m not about to put too many restrictions on code that could well be useful to the poor folks who need to use Windows or whatever else. ”
gpl’ed code can ported to windows. there is nothing preventing that. i have used gaim in windows for a long time. the gpl argument is not that bsd isnt open source. its just that bsd is anarchic and that you may be in a situation where you are competiting with a proprietary fork of your own code base. when multiple organisations work commercially with code its better to foster cooperation like the gpl’ed linux kernel. is some other situations where the alternative proprietary implementation is stronger and incorporation code is more important bsd is better say like the ogg encoders against mp3/mpeg. it depends on what you prefer. everything is a set of tradeoffs and balances. there is nothing inherently more important than the other
Steal BSD code? What are they going to do, rapel from a Blackhawk into your house in the dead of night and steal your CVS server?
I hate how everytime a troll comes out and calls OSS programmers leftist-euro-pinko-commies, anyone who disagrees is a “zealot” and only uses GPL software because of the politics.
The only dividing point of the GPL is that a whole lot coporations want free work out of programmers without recompensing them, and the GPL stands in their way.
I don’t see where the problem is, philosophically. Proprietary software requires quid-pro-quo, also. What’s the difference?
To quote everyone’s favorite software CEO, “There’s no free lunch.”
You do have the ability to hire independent developers to modify software with a Free Software lisence, though. That can make a big difference. You aren’t at the mercy of one company that can discriminate against you for any reason.
But you’re still at their mercy if you don’t have the financal means to do so. Home users and small/medium businesses don’t have the budget of a multinational corporation.
Having access to code, and ensuring that others will in the future by using licenses like the GPL, prevents monopolies and encourages innovation.
First, there is nothing wrong with monopolies. Second, it does NOT always encourage innovation. Why should a company bother to develop something revolutionary if they know that everybody will rip it after? There are cases where this is GOOD, but there are others where it is BAD. Last, but not the least: a company or a developer can close-source a BSD program but the original will always be available. That is similar to the GPL, where you don’t have to distribute your changes if you do not distribute it.
Like I said, I don’t favour neither licences but there are situations where the BSD is better and others where the GPL/LGPL is superior. For QT, I believe the BSD would be better as everybody would benefit from it: companies will be able to incorporate its technology in their proprietary products and community developers will be able to start a GPL’d version of it. You can be assured that it would happen, given the popularity of KDE. Everybody would be happy so where’s the problem. I do not see anything wrong with that.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Free Edition GPL already? I mean, there is all that discussion of QT not being free, and then we got a GPL version and a (Insert Trolltech Licence here) version.
After all, isn’t QT GPL?
I’ve always been partial to the line that having software without source code is like buying a car with the hood welded shut.
Most people who own cars, don’t know the difference between a piston and a cam shaft, so what. I would be willing to wager that many would balk at buying a car with the hood locked. If something breaks they would have to go back to the dealer. Instead they can take it to many independent garages, have their sister’s son, who’s “real good with cars”, or even fix it themselves if they are so inclined.
The GPL is trying to apply that same basic sense of control to software that you own/use. Sure most people don’t know an executable from a shared library. They might think that “pointer arithmetic” is that stuff their math teacher did on the blackboard, you remember with the piece of chalk on the end of a stick, a “pointer”. It doesn’t matter. If they have the source code, they can have an independent software house fix/modify their program for them, they could get their brother’s daughter, who’s “real good with computers”, or if they are so inclined they could do it themselves.
Unfortunately, the auto industry is trying to act more like the software industry. Using proprietary codes in the electronics of new cars, and claiming it’s a DMCA violation for an independent garage to “hack” the codes in order to fix your car. But that’s a tale of woe for another time.
Just my $0.02 (Canadian, before taxes)
someone247356
Idiot. You know damned well that I meant code taken and integrated with Windows code, and not simply including a binary. Quit trying to twist other people’s words just so you have something to argue about.
—–
No. it wasnt clear to me. no need for name calling. argue against the topic not against me
“Competition is every bit as important to evolution as cooperation, and if an original open source version can’t outlast a proprietary derivitive, than that’s no significant loss”
competition is important but competing with your own code can be frustrating. if the open source version doesnt last its a significant loss to see that the same code being used in the proprietary version which you are losing out too
”
I’ve said it before, and I’m saying it again, open standards are more important than open source. And as an unrelated side argument, BSD is doing just fine competing with Linux without the GPL.”
nope. the gcc compiler is gpl’ed. open standards are important but whats that to do with open source. they arent competition.
competition is important but competing with your own code can be frustrating
Fact of life, and unavoidable in all aspects of it. I find myself competing with my friends and brothers for women at the bar, and it can be frustrating, but that’s just how it works in a world with 6.2 billion people. Using the fact that you might have to compete with proprietary forks of your own open source code is a really weak argument.
if the open source version doesnt last its a significant loss to see that the same code being used in the proprietary version which you are losing out too
It’s not significant if people are still bennefitting from the code, open or not. You’re putting so much value on a detail that you’re selling out the future of the bigger picture for an ideology.
nope. the gcc compiler is gpl’ed
What the hell does that have to do with anything? The sky is blue here, and I’ve heard that it sometimes can be grey or white or black. Donuts have sprinkles, and sometimes dogs eat sticks. Man can you be more random in your conversation?
open standards are important but whats that to do with open source. they arent competition.
My point here was that open standards can and do far more to foster cooperation than source code ever could, and still, after months of saying it, you don’t seem to get it.
Freedom in licensing is very simple…you license your code as appropriate to the project at hand and your personal belief structure. GPL is not the one true license, just like [insert religion here] is not the one true religion. Simple as that.
Now, what I still don’t understand is how people feel that the BSD license is “harmful”? If the author gave a crap about people using their code in a commercial application they wouldn’t have used the BSD license. In fact, I would venture to say that most software developers that release their code under the BSD license are actually proud to see their code being used by commercial companies such as Microsoft.
I also don’t see how people feel that the GPL license is “harmful”. If you don’t want to release source code for your software, it’s very very simple…DON’T TOUCH A SINGLE LINE OF GPL’ED CODE, just use code with a more compatible license.
Who cares…it’s all open source…it’s all free to varying degrees. Now personally, I do prefer the BSD license, but I also enjoy a ton of software that has been released under other licenses such as the GPL, MIT/X, and MPL licenses. These licenses are all part of a happy, healthy software ecosystem.
competition is important but competing with your own code can be frustrating
“Fact of life, and unavoidable in all aspects of it”
no. gpl’ed code prevents just that
nope. the gcc compiler is gpl’ed was an answer to
“BSD is doing just fine competing with Linux without the GPL.”
“What the hell does that have to do with anything? The sky is blue here, and I’ve heard that it sometimes can be grey or white or black. Donuts have sprinkles, and sometimes dogs eat sticks. Man can you be more random in your conversation?
”
its not random
‘My point here was that open standards can and do far more to foster cooperation than source code ever could, and still, after months of saying it, you don’t seem to get it.
”
i dont agree with that opinion.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Free Edition GPL already? I mean, there is all that discussion of QT not being free, and then we got a GPL version and a (Insert Trolltech Licence here) version.
After all, isn’t QT GPL?
Yes, it is GPL, which means that you need to buy a license to make closed source, or rather to make GPL and QPL incompatible software.
What this agreement means is that if trolltech, for any reason, should stop keeping the free editing up to date, then the latest version will change its license to the BSD license. This will effectively kill trolltech as there would be no reason to buy a license from them, and any company can try and take over by forking their code, and change the license to whatever they like. Well, it might not kill them, they could time it with a large update to their commercial version.
So i think what all this really means is that QT free editing will continue to exist for a long time.
competition is important but competing with your own code can be frustrating
That’s twice in one thread you’ve used that same, weak argument.
no. gpl’ed code prevents just that
It does no such thing. I can think of countless GPL’d projects that are competing with each other. All you’ve gained is an illusion.
nope. the gcc compiler is gpl’ed was an answer to
I don’t use GCC with BSD anymore, I use TenDRA, which is BSDL’d, and it works just fine thanks. GCC is not BSD code, but is merely included with them.
i dont agree with that opinion
That’s not suprising. You’ve proven yourself to be not very bright. If you had even half a clue, you would agree with this.
Kind of a belated snack for the trolls, but I thought I’d contribute with a link that sheds some light on ESR’s political standpoint.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html
I highly doubt that a communist would endorse libertarianism on his website.
“As a freedom loving American, I have to agree completely. I’m sick and tired of these foriegners requiring me to use their anti-American GPL if I want to make use of the code they’ve written.
And I’m glad someone else here fully understands the concepts of European commie pinko socialist freedom and American freedom and how they relate to software licensing.”
The GPL is an American invention, started in America, and drawn up by Americans (Stallman and Moghen). There are even American companies, such as IBM, HP, Intel, Red Hat, and Novell (to name but a few) that are making truckloads of money off of GPL based products.
But I guess that IBM, HP, Intel, etc. are European commie pinko socialists!
Common people don’t you got anything better to do?
GPL is like doing your term paper and having to share it with everybody and everybody gets an A (provided the laws say that you are allowed to copy).
BSD is like doing your term paper using the same reference materials everybody else has access to (eg books, web references, commonly know maths formula) and then the person with the best term paper gets an A.
If Microsoft took BSD’s TCPIP stack and made it better, they deserve an A. If Apple took BSD’s kernel and made it better they deserve an A.
In Linux nobody gets an A or everybody gets an A so we’ll never know if they are outstanding or not.
Now the question one asks is: all through out school we are told never to share our work with others or use other people’s work (it’s called copying) and all of a sudden you come out of school and are expected to share your work for the profit of others?
Maybe they have to change the way people are educated. Perhaps its best if every body is allowed to copy everybody else’s exams and the guy who brown-noses the teacher – eg bringing gifts or helping mow the teacher’s lawn or fixing the roof (it’s like providing technical support) gets an A.
it prevents people from creating proprietary fork. not talking about competition. you are putting words out of context
You were refering to competition.
regardless of your own compiler. all of the bsd operating systems default compiler is gcc. try replacing that.
Was pretty easy to do here… and I’m no genius.
everyone who disagree dont have a clue and are not bright
Not true at all, nor do I imply it. I’ve been wrong many times before, and people have corrected my mistakes and I accepted the corrections, and some things really are nothing but personal preference. However in this case, what you label as my opinion, really is the better way to go, it’s just that you’re too dense to see it, and I’ve exaplined my reasons many times before.
For a Free QT that could be used with proprietary software I would prefer something that is compromise between the two extremes of GPL and BSD and I think one of the competing tool kits WxWidgets has the best answer.
They basically use the GNU LGPL with an addendom of their own allowing closed source linking both static and dynamic for proprietary software developers but with the LIBRARY source and modifications thereto remaining GPL style free.
The LGPL is my favorite license – it allows me to write whatever code I want on top of it, but if I want to change the library itself, it’ll stay free.
I stopped coding in Qt (GPL) and started on Gtk+ (LGPL) when I wanted to produce a small little program to the license of my choice.
I find it a great mixture between the left (GPL) and right (BSD) licenses.
This thread has been extremely misguided, politically. Both BSD and GPL are left — the BSD license moreso than the GPL. The basic premise of the GPL is that in order to ensure the freedom of everyone, there must be certain restrictions on the freedom available to any person. The BSD license is closer to anarchy, which believes that no such restrictions are necessary, and that the natural goodwil of man will result in the continuation of freedom. A rightist license would be something like Microsoft’s, which rejects that any sort of freedom at all is necessary for people, and that cental control of the code allows for much more “efficient” development.
i meant convicing the projects. its not applicable as a whole.
To quote you, “wrong.” FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and DragonFly are all actively taking steps to ensure that their OSes can be built with non-GCC compilers, and last I checked, you could build them all with TenDRA or (on Intel based systems anyway), ICC.
gcc is the only thing that works across platforms and operating systems and has the ability to compile all the software in *bsd. some even require gnu make
TenDRA is being ported to more architectures, and for the vast majority of people, all three compilers will work on their platform of choice, x86 and it’s new 64 bit derivitives. Some (gasp!) programs explicitly require BSD make, so that kind of invalidates your argument here.
namecalling doesnt work
Niether does reasoning. Open source code will not solve the worlds problems, but in many more cases, open standards might. Believe what you want, irrational as your beliefs seem to be.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Free Edition GPL already? I mean, there is all that discussion of QT not being free, and then we got a GPL version and a (Insert Trolltech Licence here) version.
After all, isn’t QT GPL?
It is for X11 and MacOS-X, but not for windows where you have to pay a small fee to use it. If Trolltech went away, then the crossplatformness would go away, at least until the X11 or MacOS-X version was ported.
GPL is normally used by companies that want to get help in building software infrastructure to make sure that participants in building that building projects doesn’t get any unfair competitive advantages. To release something using BSD like licences in this situation would be suicide.
But if Trolltech no longer have any interest in the product, or Trolltech no longer exists, there is no risk in using BSD. Stating that QT will be released under a BSD licence makes the lessens the business risks of using QT. And as a result Trolltech may attract more paying customers.
The BSD licence is very generous and very magnamous and heaps to social credibility to them but….
The people that love BSD are generally the type of people that always take and never give – ugh social lepers
GPL is more or less BSD with an anti-parasite clause and stops the leeches of our society.
If there were more genuine people in this world then there would probably be no need for the GPL
:o)
Its their code, they can license it any way they choose.
I prefer the GPL for my stuff because I side with the peeps before I side with the man. Some people would rather take the other side and think that’s what is best for the economy, society or sometimes just themselves personally. But only time will tell.
I like the BSD license, don’t get me wrong, I just fear what very large and powerful corporations like Microsoft might do with your source code and how that might affect the software market and the resulting products if its not properly regulated. This is not as big an issue today as it was 10 years ago. But can you imagine what would have happened if Sun had licensed Java with a BSD license? Do you think Java would still be controlled by Sun today if it had? What if it licensed Java with the GPL?
Anyway, what consequences do you think a nation might face if all its media companies merged into one extremely large media organization? Or what about all the software and computer hardware companies doing the same thing? Is that good for the whole of the economy/society? I believe the GPL is the regulation that is required to maintain our freedoms until we no longer have to fear the existence of these types of monopolies.
I’ve heard a lot of talk both on this forum and in the relavant Usenet newsgroups that TrollTech was a target for takeover by Novell and Borland. Does anyone here think that THIS may be the reason TrollTech wanted to restate their position on QT-Free. (BSD licensing of the QT-Free version would mean essentially no advantage would come to anyone who gained control of the QT proprietary licensing business by means of a “hostile” takeover attempt. However if someone with a lot of cash is planning a Hostile Takeover of TrollTech with the spacific purpose of putting QT-Free under the BSD license then I don’t think TrollTech’s announcement is going to help their situation veru much.)
If Microsoft took BSD’s TCPIP stack and made it better, they deserve an A. If Apple took BSD’s kernel and made it better they deserve an A.
But what about people making the reference material making your A possible, doesn’t they deserve something? If all authers and teachers were required work for free, my guess is that the standard of education would be much lower. In such world we can assume that your A would still be and A, but it would only show that your were as good as you can get for free.
In Linux nobody gets an A or everybody gets an A so we’ll never know if they are outstanding or not.
If I read a paper or a book, my primary interest is if it is any good, who wrote it is irrellevant. The same goes for software.
Now the question one asks is: all through out school we are told never to share our work with others or use other people’s work (it’s called copying) and all of a sudden you come out of school and are expected to share your work for the profit of others?
As far as I know most Term papers are not pulished, so they could be regarded as in house work. Meaning there is no need to share even if GPLed. This is why GPL is good news for companies using software but bad news for software houses like Microsoft. However if we look at GDP of most countries the software industry only constitutes a small part of the GDP, meaning that GPL would be better for society.
If you are software house, you should never always prefer BSD licenc over GPL as licencee. If you decide to contribute something to free software you should always use a GPL like licence as it you from being run over by your competitors.
Usually, I like to read comments FIRST before reading an article to get a feel for whether or not it interests me and/or is worth reading. This particular article peaked my curiousity. One particular paragraph of this agreement seemed interesting….
” The revised Agreement continues to honour the original purposes of the Foundation. In particular, should Trolltech ever discontinue making regular releases of the Qt Free Edition for any reason – including a buyout or merger of Trolltech or the liquidation of Trolltech – the Qt Free Edition will be released under the BSD license and optionally under one or more other Open Source Licenses designated by the Board of the Foundation.”
Maybe I am reading this wrong, but doesn’t the agreement state that they will be releasing QT Free under BSD license AND “optionally under one or more other OSS Licenses.” Doesn’t this translate to “We’re going BSD, but we may choose GPL ALSO” ???
“why use bsd licence?
everyone could take qt, make another library and sale it without the source….”
teh horrorz… when you go buy that one and i’ll keep the bsd licensed one.
the present system is what i am talking about.
Perhaps I need to be more clear. I have built all of these systems with these compilers (TenDRA and ICC), with no changes to the BSD source code. GNU code is less important to the BSDs that you would like to believe, and is getting to be so that it could well be optional.
Unless this entire earth gets lid of marketing economy based on price and profit, the GPL is just an another intellectual idealism….just like liberal socialism.
However, I don’t really think any of us want to get lid of money out of our society….we are already too deep inside it.
And don’t forget that there are diversity of philosophy…if there’s only one belief, then the society is DEAD. period. Because there will be no conflict, and some advancement is largely due to conflict/competition between diverse belief. (I’m not talking about damned inhuman, needless, bloody war!!!!) Anyway, my point is, there are many “intellectually free” people out there beside corporate owners which find GPL unsuitable….for them, BSDL will suit them fine.
And it will be wrong for GPL people to attack BSDL people and try to convert them by force….and vice versa. (Think about Christianity which destroyed hundred of diverse cultures and religions, and of course, innocent people)
Beside, we are fighting big software monopoly called Micro$oft and if GPL and BSD, the two main freedom fighter camp, fight each other, who do you think will benefit most??
However, if we hit 23rd century and our Vulcan friend comes and Earth Federation establishes and the USS Enterprise lauches, the dream will come true. (But I don’t know whether that’d happen or not!!!)
GPL is just an another intellectual idealism….just like liberal socialism.
However, I don’t really think any of us want to get lid of money out of our society….we are already too deep inside it
—————-
gpl license allows exchange of money. its says so right within the license. keep in mind that redhat,ibm,novell and thousands of other companies are doing business with gpl code. redhat has a billion dollars from that. ibm had many billions. these are hard cash. nobody is against that. you can be as deep as you can inside money
However….I have a odd and queer feeling that corporation like Redhat, ibm, etc…are polluting the true essence of GPL……..blame my wild imagination & conspiration theory. haha 😉
“Beautiful”
Agree. Hopefully it won’t come into effect any time soon. The status quo is perfect. Because of the dual license.
Linux still needs the parenting – and my guess is – at least until it’s 18.
No one has forked Qt yet – right? Must be because what’s there and where it is going and the rate it is going at is not too bad.
In the Propietary world competition means :
I win if and only if you loose.
In the BSD world competition means :
I win if others can win too.
In the GPL world competition means :
I win if and only if all other win too.
Which is remarkably similiar to: No one is free as long as some remain unfree.
I am not usually into doing analogies, but hey what the heck:
Priopietary:
Only those who have money can get an educatation: the more money the better the education.
BSD:
Anyone can get an education: A better education will cost you money.
GPL:
Everyone has a right to a good education-money is not an issue.
@ Shift:
A French proverb says : “La liberté de chacun s’arrête là où commence celle des autres” (each one’s freedom stops where the others’one starts). I agree with this, that’s why I prefer GPL
I can’t recite it now-but I am familiar with this expression in German too. I still find it amusing that America is the only country to really pursue “laisser faire”-which, as the name renders obvious, was originally a concept in french. The French in particular and the Europeans in general have, IMNSHO, a more mature and evolved understanding of the social aspects of freedom. No country in Europe today uses “Laisser faire” as an economic definition of freedom-Only America. Only in context of societal rights to which all are privy does the rights of the individual have any real meaning: individual rights have their foundation in societal rights which function as guarantor of said invidual rights.
Maybe what Trolltech says here is “we’ll never allow something like happened to Kerberos happen to QT”. If some company tries to buy Trolltech to close QT they’ll have nothing to close because it will be BSDed and GPLed (and maybe MPLed and X11ed) so they’ll have no control on QT. Think about M$ buying Trolltech. Would they follow development of QT? I bet they won’t. They would do a fork TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with QT and sell it as… NG-MFC maybe?
From Windows Zealots – “Don’t use your Brains. the windows will do everything for u” and from Linux Zealots – “Linux is the best”.
I’ve read through all of the comments here, and the differences between the bsdl and the gpl are seemingly more clear now. But one question, when one gpls their code, isn’t it then copyrighted material? Relating back to the students in a class analogy: If someone writes a paper and gets an A, then everyone else can use it to get an A. This makes sense, but under the bsd license, would the other students also be able to sell this paper, whereas under the gpl they would not? This is the area of these licenses I’m unsure of.
Thanks in advance,
-Mark
god beauitfully said…
I for one live for the day this is understood…
I am free if and only if all others are free…
thanxs made my day
i realy doubt that this has *any* juristic value at all… they could as well promise any human beeing on earth one free beer if they would go out of business. not to forget that it is kinda hard to sue a company for “breach of contract” that goes out of business… and there isn’t even a contract, just this bit of toilet paper, or is there?
“Perhaps I need to be more clear. I have built all of these systems with these compilers (TenDRA and ICC), with no changes to the BSD source code. GNU code is less important to the BSDs that you would like to believe, and is getting to be so that it could well be optional.”
s/BSDs/OpenBSD/g
The OpenBSD core team (and a bunch of its followers) are far more license purists than NetBSD or FreeBSD.
They replaced Xntpd with Openntpd for example. However, it is far from complete and has _far_ less features. Not to say the OpenBSD team hasn’t developed anything neat, as they did (PF, BGPd, etc).
The OpenBSD core team (and a bunch of its followers) are far more license purists than NetBSD or FreeBSD.
“One of the long-term goals of the NetBSD project, according to [Christos] Zoulas, is to distribute as much of the NetBSD system under the BSD license as possible. “We keep our kernel code strictly BSD licensed, and we try over time to replace GPL’ed utilities with BSD-based ones,” he said.”
From http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/21244.html
Put more simply sir, you have no idea what you’re talking about.