Re: Non-issue

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Re: Non-issue
by Andre Somers on Wednesday 01/Sep/2004, @07:01

I fully agree with you here. Why support a platform that is non-free in nature? I would like to point to http://www.fefe.de/nowindows/ for an appeal NOT to port to windows, but instead use our energy to make really free platforms as good as we possibly can. Personally, I will never support porting the software I worked on to windows. I know the official standpoint differs here, stimulating the addition of the Qt exception to the licence.

Related Links

·   Articles on Interviews
·   Also by Andre Somers
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: Non-issue
by Christoph Wiesen on Wednesday 01/Sep/2004, @08:37

I whole heartedly disagree. What point is there in not having a GPL'ed QT for Windows from a User's point of view other than that one probably doesn't like windows?

If QT would have been GPL an all available platforms some years ago many multiplatform projects would have considered it as a real possibility - think of OOo, Mozilla, Firefox, smaller software such as eMule/aMule and the like. Theres quite some good multiplatform commercial QT stuff like Opera, but I really think the non availability of a GPL version did stop QT adoption more than it did anything else.

Given that many companys/projects that see Windows as an important platform might want to code in C++ GTK could be 'dead' by now when it comes to such multiplatform project if Trolltech did the right thing before.

My 0.02€

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Non-issue
by hoernerfranz on Wednesday 01/Sep/2004, @09:34

this over-and-over again demand on a GPL'd windows version of qt is just ridiculous and hypocritical.
providing free software to those who have decided to use M$ is in fact nothing else than supporting Bill G. for free.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Non-issue
by Christoph Wiesen on Wednesday 01/Sep/2004, @10:49

Is it really so far fetched that a toolkit available for all major platforms could lead to more applications using it for _all_ of the supported platforms?

I don't think QT have to GPL QT at all cost or don't want somebody to force them or something, it is just my honest oppinion that something like that would give us more applications that are based on QT since many important projects decided and decide to be multi-platform.

The free software *is* and will be there for "M$ and it's supporters" - it's just that QT doesn't play a role in this game, and to me thats sad since GTK doesn't 'feel' any good to me when I'm forced to use it or something else like apps based on wx in Linux (something QT would have done better, but it just wasn't an option for the projects).

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Non-issue
by Nicolas Goutte on Wednesday 01/Sep/2004, @11:05

OpenOffice and Mozilla are dual-license. So I doubt that a GPL Qt would be enough.

Have a nice day!

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"If you have an itch not being scratched, you can scratch it, or pay someone to scratch it for you." -- Eric Laffoon
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.