Re: [freeqt] Re: FreeQt concerns

[Kevin Forge <forgeltd@usa.net>]

Tero Pulkkinen wrote:
> 
> Something conforming to Debian Free Software Guidelines is a must.
> I like LGPL for all libraries.
>
Those Guidlines were writen with the GPL as the primery target.
So what's wrong with Making FreeQT GPL then ?  Sure the LGPL is
generaly better than the GPL for Librarys.  However there is the
small matter of that making Troll Tech sufer for liberating QT
more than most other stuff.  Better to have FreeQT on a straight 
GPL so that KDE and all other QT stuff will be totaly free and 
protected while developers of COMERSIAL products wold have to 
open the walets to Troll Tech. 
>
> Micah Yoder <lyoder@cyberis.net> writes:
> > The GPL doesn't restrict porting.  How about a license similar to the
> > GPL but says that it MAY NOT be ported to anything besides UNIX???
> 
> Huh? And then people cannot make those neat palmpilots use kde? Are
> you serious? (I hope not)
>
Exactly.  I don't think a current PP will run a current KDE.  But
someone
might release an enhance 64 meg EPROM for the Pilot :) 
>
> > And yeah, BE SURE it's clear that you can't develop ANY software for
> > commercial use!  I'm not a GPL expert, but I *think* it's good enough in
> > that area.
> 
> Of course commercial use must be allowed. Otherwise all our freedoms
> are diminished.
>
No it is not.  Since there is an inexpensive commercial alternative 
the only thing that would be demented is your ability to be a 
freeloader.  I say use the GPL to maintain the status qo as far as 
QT is concerned.  I.e. You only pay if you are selling commercially.
You must may if you are selling commercially.
>
> > Caution is needed here...screwing Troll would *not* be good.
> 
> I dont believe they will ever be screwed. At first it'll not be good
> enough to match, and afterwards TT has already moved their revenue
> source to somewhere else. (Just like netscape did when competition in
> browsers became intolerable).
> 
> I think Harmony project, despite your fears, will actually help TT to
> get more people buy Qt as it makes more people create code that is
> compatible with Qt => they have more references to show of successful
> projects using Qt.
> 
This is true.  But only if FreeQT is not a complete replacement for
QT.  Right now it isn't, but the programers may see an opening to make 
this a possibility and go for it.  Netscape was being eaten up on the 
Windows 95 desktop because a browser that qualifies as close second
was free while it was still Pay to play.
Look how Netscape has suffered because MSIE is free to a large part of
Netscape's market ( 100% :).  If Internet Explorer was only free to
those Netscape is free to then Netscape would not need to lay off 
workers and would not have falling stock prices.
The same would happen to Troll Tech if a decent FreeQT was available
on the LGPL.  
Much simpler to put the protection in the License by using the original 
GPL rather than hoping our programers are not capable of completely 
replacing QT.  I won't bet on that since the Free software community 
and specifically Linux programers have displayed the remarkable ability
to outdo commercial developers consistently.
-- 
A computer without Windows 95 and Internet Explorer is likea piece of
chocolate cake without Catsup and Mustard.