Mobile News Qtopa 2.1 PDA Edition, the latest version of Trolltech’s development platform and user interface for Linux-based personal digital assistants (PDAs), is now available for download under the open source GNU general public (GPL) license. If someone installs it, please send us a screenshot of how its browser renders OSNews.
Qtopia PDA Edition Released Under GPL License
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I would actually like to see a mini LiveCD with this on my x86 PC.
Clearly the GNU GPL comes under the wide scope of Open Source. However, it is perhaps irresposible to lump Open Source and Free Software together. If the GPL is chosen over another “Open Source” license it is because of ideas about Freedom in Software – not “openess.”
It would therefore be far more accurate and greatly preferable to edit the above post to read “…under the free software GNU general public (GPL) license…” The Free Software movement has committed a great effort in calling for the distinction – and it does no harm to honor it here.
This is not post out of zealotry but rather a desire to maintain accuracy in relaying information about a particular issue.
If the GPL is chosen over another “Open Source” license it is because of ideas about Freedom in Software – not “openess.”
Bzzt. Wrong. You are in no position to know the motivations behind Trolltech releasing Qtopia under the GPL.
It would therefore be far more accurate and greatly preferable to edit the above post to read “…under the free software GNU general public (GPL) license…” The Free Software movement has committed a great effort in calling for the distinction – and it does no harm to honor it here.
Sorry, just because Stallmanites demand FSF newspeak doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.
True that.
On the other hand, this Qtopia only works on Linux devices..
I’ll be VERY interested if somebody ports it to WinCE so I can run it on my iPaq. Or if Linux gets to my iPaq, that’d be cool too. The Trolltech guys are pretty cool, I like what they do – even if it means that KDE still exists.
Bzzt. Wrong. You are in no position to know the motivations behind Trolltech releasing Qtopia under the GPL.
Unless, of course, Trolltech actually said that their reasons of releasing software under the GPL was to satisfy the Free Software community.
http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/announcements/00000043.html
Also, as there is actually more information conveyed when using the phrase “free software” instead of “open source”, it is a reasonable argument that Trolltech should have used it instead. Personally, I don’t think it is a big deal, but you have to admit the argument has merit.
“The release of Qt 2.2 under the GPL license will reinforce our commitment to the open source and free software movement,” said Eirik Eng, President of Trolltech.
Oops, Stallman can’t be too pleased with that. After all, it associates open source with the GPL. Not only that, but uses open source first in that sentence.
“The release of Qt 2.2 under the GPL license will reinforce our commitment to the open source and free software movement,” said Eirik Eng, President of Trolltech.”
Stallman will not have any problems with that sentence. He has stated before that all free software is open source, though not all open source software is free software. So in fact RMS will be pleased with that announcement.
A sign that the market takeup of the software hasn’t been too good…
http://familiar.handhelds.org/
🙂
It’s funny how you think that only Richard M. Stallman cares about this. You wish to poke fun at Stallman and make yourself look foolish in front of the many thousands of developers who already develop software using the GPL.
Of course we will never know exactly what motivations led QT to release this software under the GPL-but if they didn’t intend to support the Free Software community then they wouldn’t have released it under this license. One cannot release something under the GPL without this effect transpiring. Those targeted by this license, ie. the pool of potential developers, is specifically not the same target audience one would have been addressing had they chosen to release it under some other open source license.
Personaly I am ok with using the term FOSS(FLOSS). The GPL is not oppossed to open source-all GPL software is open source-but only those who already license their code under the GPL will be able to immediately make use of the code-other developers will have to weigh the requirements of their particular work to see if the use of this code is compatible with other pre-existing licensing agreements. Some open source developers will not be able to use this code due to other obligations.
Calling GPL-licensed code open source is not false, it is correct, but it fails to address the specifics involved-that there is a community targeted by this license and that there is no other motivation even worth mentioning-which being GPL guarantees. In a concrete fashion this licensing means that any application which link against Qtopia, licensed under the GPL, must themselves either be GPL or LGPL. This release guarantees the possibility of a completely free software distribution for PDA’S using Qtopia.
Just remember Lumbergh- you may see these distinctions as being a form of “newspeak” and you may see any who draw attention to these distinctions as being RMS zealots-but you are in fact being disresprectful to many thousands of people for whom these distinctions are pivotal. For you it is a difference which makes no difference-but for many, many others it is *the* difference which makes a difference.
Qtopia being GPL’ed means that is is our software, now and forever more. Something one simply cannot say about any other license. If it were released under a BSD license it might well have been the case that QT itself might have offered another product based on that code but with certain propietary restrictions without releasing the changed code, ie. making a less functional, less usefull release Open Source and a functional, usefull version of the same being only available under a propietary license. In that case your question about the motivations would be appropriate.
With GPL software the license *is* the motivation. There is no possibility of some kind of ulterior motive when one chooses to use the GPL-because all of the code and all of the changes to the code will forever remain under the GPL-at least as pertains to any distribution thereof.
What this release means to QT and what it means to any one of the developers who use the code is really rather secondary-the fact, factum est, is that this software now belongs to the Free Software community, the Free software community is entitled to do with and/or take or leave this software as they see fit. Whatever QT chooses to do with this code in the future if this software is important enough to enough Free Software developers they will take this code and make thier own project out of it. And this is the meaning of software libre.
QT has actively embraced and engaged the Free Software community for 6 years now in fact no other propietary software house of this size has so openly done so. And unless you believe that the folks at QT don’t know what they are doing where do you come off with questioning their motives ? Do you really think that they did not intend this software to be embraced by the Free Software community,ie. is this not their motive ?
In cases like this where one is reporting on a release of software it would simply make more sense to refer to it as a) Free Software or b) FOSS. For those who already endorse the GPL FOSS is redundant- but for those who have not endorsed the GPL FOSS makes clear that the software is Free-as in libre and Open Source. In this case the submitter, Eugenia, of the article is not at fault- “Tommy” of “LinuxElectrons”, who wrote the article chose this phraseology. Eugenia simply followed the norm of reporting by quoting from the text of the article itself. It would perhaps be more befitting to ask what Tommie’s motivation was in using this phraseology.
Did you even read this post?
Clearly the GNU GPL comes under the wide scope of Open Source. However, it is perhaps irresposible to lump Open Source and Free Software together. If the GPL is chosen over another “Open Source” license it is because of ideas about Freedom in Software – not “openess.”
It would therefore be far more accurate and greatly preferable to edit the above post to read “…under the free software GNU general public (GPL) license…” The Free Software movement has committed a great effort in calling for the distinction – and it does no harm to honor it here.
Frankly, it’s almost impossible to not make fun of such sillyness. It’s classic Stallman indoctrination.
They chose a restrictive license, like the GPL, because if they had released Qtopia under a truly free license like BSD/MIT/X11 then that would have decimated their business model. Qtopia is dual-licensed just like QT.
They chose a restrictive license, like the GPL, because if they had released Qtopia under a truly free license like BSD/MIT/X11…
Funny. If BSD style licenses are so fantastic then why is it that it is the working model of the GPL that has pushed Linux way out infront? That restriction seems to work very well. It is not the BSD, MIT or X11 licenses that have pushed forward open source software in the way that has been done over the years, it is the snowball effect of the GPL primarily achieved by Linux.
But then I forget – you’re one of these idiots who expects everything to be free. Free meaning that you want to pay no money (put simply) and will contribute nothing back, and have this bizarre idea that no one pays back money in the form of software licenses either.
…then that would have decimated their business model.
Right on Sherlock. Working business models are vitally important in the real world, and they’re vitally important for open source software – free or otherwise.
The GPL isn’t less free than any of the licenses you listed. In fact, the GPL is more free since it protects your freedom, my freedom, and the freedom of a generation of young scholars and programmers who will emerge after we are long gone. Lameduck, for once, think outside your claustrophobic box and stop being shortsighted.
If you don’t agree with RMS go start movement advocating Microsoft’s EULA, or something. The GPL is here to stay and nobody gives a shit if you think it’s free or not, frankly.
Could we stop with all this talk of Licences, i’d be more interested in how people find the performance of Qtopia, the Opie project will no doubt sync with this version of Qtopia (they are based off a fork of the earlier version of Qtopia that was gpl’d)
http://opie.handhelds.org/cgi-bin/moin.cgi/
I think users should understand that QT GPL licence is tied to TrollTech, it is free while they want too and they could change it anyday they want,
[…]
GTK works different, is is granted that it will be free forever and nobody can’t change that.
That is SO wrong! The KDE project and Trolltech founded the “KDE free Qt foundation”. The purpose of this foundation is to guarantee that in the case that Trolltech stops to develop the Qt Free Edition, the code will be made availabe under a BSD license. This effectively means that as long as Trolltech develops Qt, they will make a free edition available.
Thx. for the information, I didn’t know that.
Oops, Stallman can’t be too pleased with that. After all, it associates open source with the GPL.
Actually, Stallman is very happy about this. From the article (right before the quote you provided):
“I am very pleased to see that Qt is now available under the GPL,” said Richard Stallman, President of the Free Software Foundation. “This is a big win for free software and a great gift from Trolltech to the community.”
Keep trying to spin this as much as you want, you jumped the gun with your first post and were proven wrong.
because if they had released Qtopia under a truly free license like BSD/MIT/X11
Here we go again…the GPL isn’t less free than BSD/MIT/X11, it simply promotes a different kind of freedom (users vs. developers). After all, a laissez-faire enthusiast like you should know that one person’s freedom begins where another person’s freedom ends…
You Stallmanites don’t seem to understand that users only have the rights that developers give them.
Indeed. And the GPL gives users more rights, by ensuring that derivatives will remain free.
The GPL is more restrictive and less free than BSD/MIT/X11
That’s only true if you can only consider things in the short-term. In the long-term, the GPL is more free than the license you mention, because it makes sure that derivatives remain free. Thus the GPL promotes freedom of code more than the BSD, which allows derivatives to be made un-free.
The BSD license is like the Weimar Republic. It was so democratic that it would allow the people to vote for a dictatorship (and they did). The GPL is like the U.S. Constitution: it promotes freedom, but has restrictions in place to ensure that this freedom endures.
at least to those of us in the real world that haven’t been indoctrinated by Stallman.
Again with the insults and ad hominem attacks, Lumbergh? Haven’t you understood that every time you lie about and misrepresent those whom you disagree with, you lose a bit more of your credibility?
What makes you think you have been any less indocrinated by right-wing, free-market and laissez-faire ideologues? You don’t see us calling you a Friedmanite, now, do you?
Have some respect if you want to be respected as well. Or keep acting like you do, and continue to nudge moderates away from your side, I really don’t care. It’s up to you.
Knowing Stallman’s penchant for throwing tantrums when someone doesn’t say GNU/Linux and when open source is associated with “free” software, you can only conclude that he wasn’t pleased with the press release.
Please provide proof of what you are asserting, otherwise I’ll keep considering it for what it is: bitter, unsubstantiated attacks against someone whom you disagree with.
I’ve met Stallman, and while he can be adamant in his uncompromising attitude, he is not the kind to throw tantrums. Unlike you.
Just look at the bitterness that the second poster has – telling Eugenia to edit the headline.
There was no bitterness. In fact the post was quite polite and pointed out the difference between “Open Source” and “Free Software”. It accurately reflected on the fact that Trolltech did this for those member of the community who wanted QTopia to be Free Software.
Personally, I couldn’t care less about it. But of course, as a true zealot you saw this as an opportunity to continue your pathetic anti-Stallman crusade.
Users don’t code and are only given the rights that developers grant them.
You shouldn’t make false assertions that can be so easily disproven, it only further damages your already-tattered credibility. The truth is that some users do code, and that coders are invariably users themselves.
Semantics aside, you’re right in saying that users are only given the rights that developers grant them. Actually, a more accurate description is that those who obtain code are given the rights that the people who hold the copyrights for that code grant them. This is exactly why the GPL is such an important license, as not only does it empower users, it also guarantees that the freedom they enjoy will not be taken away for derivatives of that code.
So now you’re comparing the BSD License to the rise of nazism. Do yourself a favor and seek professional help immediately.
Instead of trying to insult me, why don’t you provide a counter-argument? The analogy I made isn’t perfect, but it’s pretty good: freedom without safeguards will usually lead to less-than-ideal results.
Of course, why would I expect anything else than ad hominem attacks from you, I’ve never seen you make a solid argument in months of posting on this web site…
If I started getting respect from Stallman drones I would be a little worried.
Start to worry, because unlike you I respect you (and I believe you consider me to be a “Stallman drone”, since I agree with him more than with you).
You see, the key to winning any debate is to respect your opponent, because we’re not trying to convince each other, we’re trying to convince others who might read what we write. The way you act, you bring more people to my side than anything I could say. I’m not saying that you should respect those who disagree with you for my sake, but for yours. Normally, I should let you dig your own hole, but I like a challenging debate and so far you’ve made it much too easy for me.
But if you insist on resorting to logical fallacies instead of reasoned argument, then I guess I’ll have no other option than to let fester in your own bile…
How about you take this license discussion to some other board (which I’m hopefully not reading)? This was supposed to be about Qtopia, am I not correct?
Now, has anyone installed it yet? Screenshots! We demand screenshots!
This was supposed to be about Qtopia, am I not correct?
I agree that the incessant flamewars sparked by certain individuals every time RMS or the GPL are mentioned are tedious, however for once it is on-topic. Take another look at the article’s headline:
“Qtopia PDA Edition Released Under GPL License”
In this case, the article is in fact about the licensing of Qtopia, not its performance or features. That said, I will second the call for screenshots, as I must confess to also being a screenshot junkie…
You Stallmanites don’t seem to understand that users only have the rights that developers give them.
What else is new? The GPL gives users the right to do as they please with software licensed under it, as long as the software and derivatives of it are distributed as a free software under the same license. What you term restriction, I call protection. I am not a “Stallmanite,” whatever that means. I am a proponent of free software.
The GPL is more restrictive and less free than BSD/MIT/X11 – at least to those of us in the real world that haven’t been indoctrinated by Stallman.
Yes, it is more restrictive to pests who want to exploit the turmoil of gracious, intelligent and benevolent hackers all over the world for their own selfish, shortsighted and mundane motives. If the GPL is restrictive to such undesirable elements, who cares!
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-10-19-011-20-NW-CY-…..)
I just read it, looks like that StallMan feels like the president of the OSS.
Of course, he is not.
is that a recording of ballmer i see?
I know this is all OT; I apologize to others for contributing to this mess. Nevertheless, I will try to restore some civility with a question: What freedoms does the GPL take away *that you really miss*? The big restriction seems to be this: any *published* changes to the source of a GPL’d program must also be GPL’d. By releasing a program under the GPL, its author is sharing with the community. If you modify their program and publish *that*, is it really too much to ask that you, in turn, share your work? If you don’t want to publish your modified version, that’s fine; you’re not required to release your modifications at all. If you do release a modified version, it seems fair to maintain the author’s spirit of generosity. I realize that we’re arguing about a company, not a person, and that Trolltech would only release Qtopia as GPL if they felt it would earn them more money. However, we are apparently arguing about the definition and merits of the license, not the reasons for the company’s decision.
Besides, wasn’t Qtopia already GPL’d? Isn’t this about a *new* version of Qtopia under the same license as the old one? Otherwise, how could OpenZaurus/OPIE distribute it?
“Trolltech didn’t do this out of the goodness of their hearts – unlike what Trolltech would have you believe in their press release that…[blah blah blah]”
I thought we weren’t in a position to know what their motivations were Lumbergh?
“You are in no position to know the motivations behind Trolltech releasing Qtopia under the GPL.” To quote your initial post.
“Bzzt. Wrong!” – Indeed.
“users only have the rights that developers give them”
Read the GPL please. If you have GPL’d software in your posession, you own it.
There is too much material on the internet to justify reading the rest of your ‘contributions’.
Stop with the bloody licensing wars.
Talk about the technology for a change.
You call it protection and not restriction because you’ve been indoctrinated.
Not really. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out why a developer would want his/her work and derivatives of it to remain free, if he/she so desired. Even a toddler grasps the concept of charity, openness and freedom.
Yeah…workers of the world unite. Can you be any more of a drama queen?
Great, the proverbial case of the pot calling the kettle black. But lamebug, do you really think readers of osnews care whether or not you think the sun is blue or black, talk little of your opinion on free software in general? That’s like me asking Microsoft whether their products are more secure and cheaper than the free software alternatives.
Just in case I am speaking in tongues Lamebug, your reputation precedes you.
Yes, you and I might understand that it’s about developer choice, but Stallman doesn’t care about developers.
That’s flawed. Developers too are users. It’s not about developers. It’s about users who may or may not be developers.
Go read some of his writings. To him, it’s all about users.
So? Aren’t you a user of free software? And if my recollection isn’t vague, aren’t you also a software developer?
He could give a rat’s ass about developers.
I don’t either. To me they are all users.
At least with BSD code you have the choice to incorporate BSD code and then choose to release your code under the GPL. That effectively GPLs the program. The reverse is not true though.
That’s correct and equally blissful. Unfortunately, software licensed under the BSD can easily be made proprietary, effectively killing the freedom of its users, who may or may not be developers, and killing any contributions of the users to the product.
I fail to understand why you insist on artificially alienating developers from users and vice- vesa. Besides, the developers aren’t the oppressed party. The developers have always had the right to choose whatever license they which to impose on user, be it ethical or not. Microsoft has had the pleasure of shitting all over users for decades, while users helplessly took it in the ass. I have paid for buggy, insecure, unreliable, untested, privacy-infringing, virus-infested, Trojan-leaking products from Microsoft for years. Microsoft denied me the freedom to correct their incompetence or to hire a professional to do so if I wished. Developers are already too powerful and that’s the norm.
However, your premises are broken when you discriminate between users and developers. They are one and the same in many instances. In fact, in the free software world, the category of individuals most vehement about their freedom and rights to use software are hackers and developers. How then could you say Mr Stallman couldn’t care less about developers?
There’s some quite good stuff in Qtopia, and I suspect they’ve GPL’d it so it can gain much wider acceptance and possibly integrate some technology with KDE and projects like OPIE. They don’t have a shortage of customers or applications for the thing, but on the other hand, OPIE, Open Zaurus and open source embedded Linux in general have made so much progress over time they probably need to try and tap into that. OPIE has even has some offers to bring OPIE to other PDAs and possibly even Smartphones…..
As for the browser question. The browser on top of Qtopia is generally Opera, so it should render sites like OSNews perfectly. However, as Opera is a third-party application it will not of course be GPLd. What would be interesting is to see the embedded OPIE Konqueror up and running on here, which should be fairly trivial. I’ve had OSNews viewed perfectly on a Sony T630, which has a really crap web browser I might add, so the compatibility of OSNews with many mobile devices seems to be pretty good.
Now if only I could get this up and running on that stupid and useless Smartphone I’ve been given at work……
You compared the BSD license to the rise of Nazism. You can deny it all you want, but the words are there for everybody to see.
Stop lying. I made an analogy between the BSD license and the Weimar Republic, not nazism. You have yet to argue how this analogy is wrong.
Trolltech is really open source everything it seems. Now, if only some of the big companys like Macromedia and Adobe would jump on the QT train and deliver some cross platform programs.
is freedom lost. stability is just as important as the freedom to move forward, if not then your building on sand…
Hey, some of us actually find the license debate amusing
Now if only there were a more eloquent spokesperson for the BSD/MIT/X11 side… (I’m pro-GPL in general FWIW.)
is freedom lost. stability is just as important as the freedom to move forward, if not then your building on sand…
Wow. You’ve said that better in one sentence than I have in a couple of posts (which have quite rightly got modded down). Could never have put it better.
If you are so convinced you aren’t a troll, please explain to me why your comments keep getting modded down. Until you can reply in a rational, down-to-earth peaceful fashion then you will continue to be a troll and a troll only, whether your ideas have merit or not. In your case, sadly, most of them don’t – but at least you could remove yourself from the “Troll” category and put yourself into the “slightly unintelligent” category.
Now Lumbergh will of course reply to this taking nothing I’ve said into consideration, yelling at me with an unintelligent and off topic spew of offensive names, lies, and implications or assertions about my intelligence. This goes on par with what his replies have been every time so far.
Lumbergh, you are a troll. It is as simple as that. If you don’t want to be called a troll, then stop trolling and reply to people properly. Saying “I wouldn’t have to be such an asshole if the second poster wasn’t so stupid” is the least intelligent reasoning you possibly could have come up with. Many people here are posting who are most definitely NOT the second poster. They have given you no reason to be hostile towards them, only reasons you shouldn’t think the way you do. You reply with unwarranted insults and no comebacks to the points in their comments.
That is all.