Talk:KDE/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Licensing

I changed the licensing section to correct two factual errors:

1) "In mid-1997, the GNU project had concerns about the licensing of Qt, leading to their founding the GNOME Desktop project and Harmony, a now-abandoned project to clone Qt. Qt was later relicensed to provide the GNU General Public License as an option, which has mitigated these concerns." In the text, "these concerns" clearly reflect the concerns of the GNU project. As of today, there is no dispute between the KDE project and the GNU project, as Qt is now free software. In fact, The GNU project prefers the GPL license over the Lesser GPL license. Therefore, the text was factually incorrect, as the concerns were not "mitigated" but eliminated.

2) "There is still considerable disagreement over the use of the full GPL for a library like Qt, and the restrictions this imposes on code linking to it, such as the KDE framework and any applications written for it." The KDE framework and applications written to it suffer no restrictions in general, as they are, in general, licensed no meet either the GPL or QPL licenses restrictions. However, the GPL imposes restrictions on proprietary (closed source) applications (they have to pay for Qt), so the section was modified to reflect that. Please note that the LGPL also imposes restrictions to proprietary applications (for instance, it forbids adding limitations on reverse engineering in the application's license). Therefore, the text was incorrect (especially the "any" application written to it" part). -- Carloswoelz 14:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It's perfectly valid to say that it imposes restrictions on the KDE framework and any applications linking to it. Your counter argument is bizarre. It appears to be 'There are no restrictions assuming you obey the rules'. Yes and there are no speed limits on public roads as long as you don't break them. The GPL also imposes restrictions on the use of other GPL incompatible open source licenses too not just proprietary software. The text was perfectly correct in that. Maybe you should have another go and editing the section.

What restrictions it imposes on the KDE framework and applications? And you did not counter my point 1, but removed my changes anyway :( And what is "bizarre" is that the QPL + GPL is in fact as liberal as the LGPL (maybe even more, as the QPL doen not have reverse engineering restrictions) to open source licensed code. In fact, please pont me out *one* OSI aproved license which you cannot use with the QPL + GPL. So pointing out "restrictions" in the KDE libs and apps is just nonsense. Just like GNOME, KDE libs are LGPL and apps GPL. -- Carloswoelz 18:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"your justification is ridiculous. As I said on the talk page - speed limits on public roads are still there even if you obey them.". First, please stop to call my arguments "bizarre" or "ridiculous". The first sentence of the KDE article is: "KDE (K Desktop Environment) is a free desktop environment and development platform built with Trolltech's Qt toolkit." So the KDE framework is a free software project by definition. Now, the GPL and the QPL let KDE choose any license it wants for fullfilling its objective, considering that its objective is creating a free software desktop environment. Since you like cars and roads, let me explain it this way: KDE is a car designed to go at a max speed of 30 miles per hour. If the road speed limit is 30mph, instead of 50 mph, saying that the road speed limit restricts the kde framework, while true, is just nonsense, because KDE would not run faster even if the limit were 70 mph. In order to solve your problems, I added "libraries", instead of only "applications", and this is as far as I can go. I will change it again, if you don't like it, ask for moderation. -- Carloswoelz 15:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Whats this supposed to show. All it proves is that you still don't understand what is being said. The restrictions imposed by the GPL also apply to the KDE framework in the same way they apply to applications built on that framework. As I already said - twice - if you obey the speed limit on a public road it does not mean there are no speed limits. There is no disputing this.

First, I do understand, I just don't agree. I can say a lot of things which is true, but can lead to wrong judgment. Your sentence implies that the license limits in some way what the KDE framework whats to be. While true, it is misleading. I am *not* disputing that it is true. Read it again. I am not disputing that it is true. It is only misleading, and not relevant for the article. BTW, how come you are so interested about this, and you can't even put out a name, so that I know who I am talking to? -- 65.119.246.98 04:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Another option: just remove the last part of the sentence: "There is still considerable disagreement over the use of the full GPL for a library like Qt, and the restrictions this imposes on code linking to it, such as the KDE framework and applications/libraries written with it." The first part seems clear enough to me. The problem never was if a free software desktop can use a GPL library, but the problems it presents to proprietary developers. -- Carloswoelz 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Why remove that. It is correct.

Mainly true, but misleading. GPL is not the only license Qt has. GPL does not restrict KDE/Qt, but the sum of GPL + QPL + Prop license. It is impossible to develop prop software with GPL libs. With KDE, you can. You can write software using any open source license with KDE, even GPL incompatible licenses, because of the QPL. So it is not true. The remaining restriction is that you can't develop proprietary software with Qt/KDE without paying a license to Trolltech. So if you want, add this: "In particular, in order to develop proprietary software with KDE and Qt, it is necessary to purchase a commercial license from Trolltech." we have a deal. OK, I just did it -- Carloswoelz 04:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The licensing section does read somewhat like an advertisement for Trolltech at the moment. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make it a bit less POV? 128.232.240.138 15:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Do you see any factual errors on it? Please note that I don't particularly like this section, I just splitted it from a different part of the article. I did not add the price of the license, but since it was there, I just added what you would get for it. I corrected the factual mistakes (like the FSF still recommending the LGPL), the "fact" that you have to use the GPL for using Qt for free (not true, don't forget the QPL). -- Carloswoelz 21:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hard-to-understand paragraph

I have read this paragraph four times, and I still do not understand what it is trying to say.

The somewhat unusual name "3.0.5a" was used because of a lack of version numbers. Work on KDE 3.1 had already started and, up to that day, the release coordinator used version numbers such as 3.0.5, 3.0.6 internally in the main Subversion repository to mark snapshots of the upcoming 3.1. Then after 3.0.3, a number of important and unexpected bug fixes suddenly became necessary, leading to a conflict, because 3.0.6 was at this time already in use. More recent KDE release cycles have tagged pre-release snapshots with large revision numbers, such as 3.1.95, to avoid such conflicts.

For example, what does 3.0.3 have to do with 3.0.5 and 3.0.6? — Daniel Brockman 22:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

O.k. I admit it is hardly understandable (and I feel responsible - AFAIK I'm the author of the paragraph). The problem why I think it is hard to understand is that two things happened in parallel after the release of 3.0

1. bug fixes => these led to the versions 3.0.1, 3.0.2, 3.0.3, ...
2. a new version (with major modifications) was started - that eventually became 3.1

Now before 3.1 was finally released the team "tagged" versions in the CVS (today this is subversion). In this case the KDE team started work on 3.1 and tagged the first version on the way to 3.1 with "3.0.5". At this point in time bug fixes lead to 3.0.1 and no one believed that any kind of conflict could occur (in the past only two or three bug fix versions were released).

But then a number of security bugs forced the KDE team to release several minor KDE versions, until they finally reached 3.0.4 and then found that 3.0.5 already was "blocked" by the coming 3.1 version. As 3.0.5 was already in use they named the bugfix release "3.0.5a".

Nowadays, the KDE team starts the development of bugfix releases with a larger number - IIRC 3.1.95 was used for the 3.2 series.

Does that explanation helps? Please feel free to update the article accordingly. -- mkrohn 23:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Updated accordingly.--213.216.199.6 13:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing issues

"It is a violation of the GPL to produce applications which link to the QT library (as most if not all KDE applications do) without acquiring a commercial license from Trolltech, even if the application is noncommercial." : no. You can link to Qt as long as you publish (make available) your source (condition of the GPL). This source must be licensed under a GPL compatible license.

The criticism is that a license must be purchased in order to produce closed source software for KDE. Commercial software is not unnecessarily closed source (red hat Linux is commercial GPL), just as freeware is often closed source.

Of course commercial software is often closed source, hense the problem. 84.102.180.203 00:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I made that addition, which is wrong, see my talk page. However there are some problems with the statement as it was:

• It mentions commercial software, whether or not it's commercial is irrelivant, and you could equally criticize it for now allowing free software other than that licensed under the GPL to link to it
• It is possible to make commercial applications commercial applications that do not use the GPL without approval from TrollTech, just not very legal

I've rewritten it again, hopefully more accurately this time. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to revert to version [1].

It does not mention commercial software, but closed source software. Applications which link Qt do not have to be under the GPL, just under a GPL compatible license. The FSF lists about 30 licenses that are GPL compatible, but any license that respects the terms of the GPL is GPL compatible. It is equally a violation of the Trolltech Qt commercial license to publish software that does not respect it's terms.

Ah, but when the FSF lists GPL compatable licenses they mean code under a license which you're allowed to re-license under the GPL, *nothing* is GPL-compatable in the sense that you can link to a GPL application without your application being under the GPL too. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Very true, I was completely wrong there, sorry. A program linking to a GPL library must be released as GPL. Karderio 17:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Commercial software can very well be distributed under the terms of the GPL, in fact this is ideal. However most companies want to be able to use a closed source license. The criticism is that the GPL license of Qt does not let companies produce closed source applications for KDE without paying. This discourages companies from writing software linking to Qt, as most of them prefer to publish their commercial software as closed source. The problem is that it would be much more beneficial to the open source community if a company writes software for an open desktop, rather than for Windows or Mac for example, even if this software is closed source.

*Nod*, of course you can make commercial software under the GPL (see Redhat and MySQL AB for example). —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

For me, the criticism is "It is not possible to produce closed source applications under KDE without acquiring a commercial license from Trolltech.", which is then explained further down. Maybe it needs further explanation ? Karderio 14:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, you want to incorporate the fact that KDE has been criticised because you can't make commercial software that is not under the GPL for it, fine. However IMO that's misleading and much too uninclusive, it implies that there's something in KDE or the GPL that says "you can't link to me if your application is commercial & closed source" which is not the case, what *is* the case is that it says "you can't link to me if you're not under the same license, period", that includes closed source commercial applications *and* free software applications that are under a free software license that is not the GPL *and* anything else. I simply want to change it because it was much to narrow when it should be much wider. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you can critisize KDE, more generally, for forceing programs linking to Qt to be under the GPL. I see now how the prior version was misleading. I'll try to convey this in the next version, thanks. Karderio 17:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Third and Fourth paragraphs are wrong : third pragraph says that FSF recommends LGPL with a link which says exactly the opposite ("Why you shouldn't use LGPL [...snip...] we are now seeking more libraries to release under the ordinary GPL."). Then fourth paragraph says "it is far better for the open source community that a commercial application be compatible with the open desktop than to be written for a proprietary OS" -> who are we to say such a thing ? It should be removed and this whole paragraph doesn't speak about KDE nor Qt at all.

I updated the criticism section with a more balanced, showing both sides now and removing baseless claims. I removed the "windows-like" criticism (just nonsense and heresay), and other slashdot-like comments. Please provide some studies or background before adding them back. - Carloswoelz 23:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Further up somebody said : "third pragraph says that FSF recommends LGPL with a link which says exactly the opposite" : this is wrong, it did not say the opposite. Although the text states "[...] we are now seeking more libraries to release under the ordinary GPL.", explaining why a library should not be systematically under the LGPL (as many developers thought to be the case at the time), it goes on to state when the LGPL is useful "There are reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Library GPL for that library."

"it is far better for the open source community that a commercial application be compatible with the open desktop than to be written [solely] for a proprietary OS" For me this is a simply logical statement in itself, I do not see any wrong in it. Moreover it rather neatly resumes the criticism that used to be in this section. Please explain what could be wrong with it.

This section now seems to be more explanation of the license than criticism. I believe there is valid criticism regarding the license. I myself am a professional developer (I wish to remain anonymous regarding these issues, I will call myself Josh1024 from now on regarding this issue to avoid becoming embroiled or associated with the thing) and the only reason I do not develop native KDE applications is because of the Qt license (I have given this much thought in the past).

84.103.158.105 01:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Josh1024

I have changed this section to highlight the criticism of the Qt licenses. Perhaps much of the text removed could be put into a licensing section, and the remaining in a criticism subsection of this.

I removed “Even now that the FSF removed all objections on the use of Qt”. Whether the FSF has objections to the use of Qt is not really the issue, they only had objections when Qt was not considered free software.

I have removed “it is not necessary to use Qt or the KDE libraries to write software that integrates well to the KDE desktop”, I would argue that an application that uses a toolkit other than Qt is not really a KDE application, but an application that runs under KDE, as most GNOME, Motif or XFCE applications, for example, can. It is true that applications can be further integrated into KDE with the KDE libraries other than Qt, but they can never behave precisely like a native KDE application (when they use buttons, scrollbars, checkboxes...). I have used the term “native graphical KDE applications” to describe the type of application that cannot be written without Qt, is this clear / correct ?

I have removed RuDI, this does not create better integration, rather it simplifies integration, I would say this doesn't belong here either, but it may be interesting to list this as future developments.

I have removed “In sum, closed source developers are not forced to use Qt, even if they want to write applications for the KDE desktop, and should pay for Qt only if they believe the documentation, quality, commercial support, license and cross platform capabilities are worth the price.” This is hardly the sum of the issues, and I believe it to be partly false : a developer should pay for Qt if he wishes to distribute closed source applications linking to it, whether he likes it or not.

I removed “which conflicts with most closed source EULAs.” : most companies may prohibit reverse-engineering in their EULAs, but this would only conflict with the LGPL if they wanted to link a piece of software with that type of EULA to LGPLed libraries (I'm not sure I'm being quite clear here). I think saying that the LGPL is restrictive because it prohibits reverse-engineering is quite sufficient.

I changed “with one year of support and upgrades, no royalty fees, access to the source code and freedom to patch the source and use it perpetually” this sounds too much like a marketing pitch for a section that is stating the troubles of having to pay. You have access to the source code, freedom to patch it and perpetual use whether you pay for the commercial license or not (all this granted at least by the GPL). You also get updates under the GPL and QPL even if you do not buy the license, but you are not allowed to use them for closed source software (if you patch your Qt with the GPLed updates, you must release it under the GPL).

Can anybody point me to the full text of the Qt commercial license ?

84.103.158.105 03:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Josh1024

I fail to understand the importance of this "native application" concept. If a GTK app that uses the GTKQt theme engine, and uses KDE services for notification, file dialog, printing, etc... is not a KDE application, then 80% of the windows applications that use different toolkits are not "native windows applications". Please explain what you mean and what is the importance of writing "native" KDE applications, or please remove the expression from the license section. Also, I revertyed the FSF changes: the FSF reference in the license issues is to clarify the issue for people who still thinks that the FSF has anything against the Qt license. I also removed a reduandant section. I plan to work more on this issue. -- Carloswoelz 19:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

“what is the importance of writing "native" KDE applications” : to integrate nicely with the desktop, to provide consistency, this is a founding principle KDE.

“KDE was founded in 1996 by Matthias Ettrich, who was then a student at the University of Tübingen. He found a number of things wrong with the UNIX desktop at that time. Among his qualms, outlined in a now-famous newsgroup post, were that none of the applications looked, felt, or worked alike. He proposed the formation of not only a set of applications, but rather a desktop environment, in which users could expect things to look, feel, and work consistently.”

Qt provides KDE with it's “look and feel” (but does not concern how applications function).

84.102.180.216 12:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Josh1024

The first line of the KDE article says “KDE (K Desktop Environment) is a free desktop environment and development platform built with Trolltech's Qt toolkit.” This may not imply that native KDE applications must use Qt, but it does mean that an application must use Qt to be part of KDE. I believe (not say) this does suggest (not state) that KDE applications should (not must) use Qt.

When we consider “a GTK app that uses the GTKQt theme engine”, the GTK+ widgets will be graphically very similar to Qt widgets, but they will still not behave in the same way. GTK+ contains widgets that do not exist in Qt, and inversely. For example “a GTK app that uses the GTKQt theme engine, and uses KDE services for notification, file dialog, printing, etc...” will not have the same popup menu on text fields, will not have the same pointer over list views, will have totally different open file dialogs etc... than core KDE applications. To overly simplify things a little, we could say that to be considered a KDE application, the app must have at least the “Look and Feel” of the core KDE apps ; GTKQt provides the “look”, but the “feel” is definitely not the same when using GTK+ in place of Qt (even if you can remedy this in part by using KDE libraries). GTKQt will only provide the look of Qt for GTK+ applications however, there is no other tool to provide this for other widget sets such as FLTK, Lesstif, FOX toolkit, Tk...

So what? How is anyone forcing you to use Qt/KDE?

“uses KDE services for notification, file dialog” What do you mean by notification ? If you mean startup notification or icons in the notification area, these are both Freedesktop standards, so this is totally independent of the toolkit or whatever libraries you use. The file open dialog is part of Qt, just as the GNOME one is part of GTK+, this is exactly the sort of problem that arises from not using Qt.

The file open dialog is not part of Qt, and you can access it using kdialog, without linking to Qt.

“[...] is not a KDE application, then 80% of the windows applications that use different toolkits are not 'native windows applications'.” What exactly constitutes a “native windows application” is another debate, I believe this analogy to be not entirely accurate.

Why not? -- Carloswoelz 19:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I decided to ask some KDE developers on KDE to see what they thought defined a KDE application, here is the transcript :

Josh1024: I want to write an application for KDE, must I use the Qt toolkit ?

Dev1: your application doesn't have to use Qt to work in KDE, but if you don't it won't look and work like other KDE apps, and you won't have access to the KDE API's

Dev1: using Qt doesn't mean having to use C++ though, since we have bindings for other languages, if that's an issue

Josh1024: Thanks ! Could I use something else than Qt and my app still be a "KDE application" though ?

Dev1: no, using the qt libraries is a basic criteria for being considered a kde application

Josh1024: So I must use Qt to write a native graphical KDE application ?

Dev1: yes

Dev1: do you mind if i ask why you prefer a different toolkit?

Dev1: asking mostly out of curiosity :)

Josh1024: I want to write commercial apps, so I would like to prevent people that buy them from redistributing them, I think I would have to buy a commercial licence for Qt to do this...

Dev2: i think it too

Dev1: yes, that's true

84.102.180.68 01:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Josh1024

Who is disputing this? I am only disputing the way you frame it. Nobody forces you to write a closed source KDE app. You should only do it if you thing if Qt/KDE works for you. On the other hand, you can write an app for the KDE desktop using any toolkit. Sodipodi used to do it using GTK. -- Carloswoelz 19:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The criticism originally directed at KDE in this section is : To publish a KDE application (supposing full integration to the KDE environment, which implies the use of the Qt library) as closed source software, a developer must pay for a license. Please could anybody who disagrees with this statement please explain why, rather than erasing any references to it in this section, transforming the section from criticism of the KDE licenses (more specifically the Qt license which is the only problematic one) to mere comments on KDE.

The section is about licensing issues. It is not a "bashing KDE section". The section states correctly that you need a Qt license to link to Qt and ship closed source software. Everybody agrees, that is a fact. But you want to frame it as "criticism". Well, I don't agree. I think it is an advantage. So the best is to frame it as a fact. -- Carloswoelz 19:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Added back “A developer needs a commercial Qt license to distribute closed source software which links to Qt, and although you can write software for KDE without linking to Qt, you cannot create complex native graphical KDE applications.” This represents the core of the criticism, it is factually correct (AFAICS) and shows the nuance that you can have an app under KDE without Qt.

Again, this is not criticism, this is a fact. And should be framed as a fact. Why "Some closed source developers argue that paying for a license, similar to the relatively expensive development tools of other systems, removes most of the financial incentive for writing closed source, native graphical KDE applications." does not reflect your position? Why do you want to suppress other people's views? -- Carloswoelz 19:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• “This tends to force developers to buy a commercial license if they wish to distribute native graphical KDE applications with a closed source license.” This is not a repetition : it says given what has just been said, it is hard for a developer to distribute closed source apps for KDE without buying a license... Perhaps this needs rewording, I do not see what would warrant deletion.

"tends to force" is biased. It implies that someone is forced to use KDE agains its will. This is not true. So I will revert it to a more NPOV version. You are free to use anything else, GTK for instance. To listen to music on an Ipod you have to buy it. So you can frame it: Apple tends to force people to buy an ipod if someone tries to use it". It is hard to maintain. -- Carloswoelz 19:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• “a license that the Free Software Foundation (FSF, creator of GPL and LGPL) recommends for libraries who's functionality is readily available for proprietary software through alternative libraries [2], as is the functionality of Qt (in MFC or Cocoa for example)” This illustrates very well the criticism, it is factually correct (again AFAICS, please read fully the FSF document to understand why). It not at all meant to suggest that the FSF does not agree with KDE licensing, just to state the FSF position.

If it is not related, and you are not suggesting anything, you can write this in the LGPL page. You are suggesting that the FSF prefers the use of LGPL over GPL, which is not true. -- Carloswoelz 19:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Removed “Additional integration efforts are being discussed in the Portland Free Desktop initiative [2], and are planned for KDE 4.” This project facilitates integration but does not advance it beyond the use of KDE services, anyhow this is not the issue discussed here. This might be nice in a future plans section though.

No. It is relevant because it shows that you can use other toolkits and still integrate to the KDE desktop. Just like we state the fact that it is not possible to write closed source software with Qt without paying a license, we make clear that you can use other toolkits to write software for KDE. It is just a question of showing both sides. This is not a place to rant against Qt. If you wish, go to the Qt page, not here, or write a blog. -- Carloswoelz 19:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have spent much effort commenting my changes to avoid people misunderstanding the issues, if you delete whole sections of this please could you explain why (really explaining, rather than saying thing like “this is not correct”), thank you

The explanations are above. You are trying to add a rant in the article. I accepted to add a "licensing issues" section, but you insist in maintaining a rant. If you continue, I will ask to for review. maybe, it is better to remove the whole section, and just state the fact that you can't write closed source software without paying a Qt license. The price of the Qt license, in particular, shopuld not be here, it should be in trhe Qt article (if you must). -- Carloswoelz 19:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

84.102.180.68 02:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)