OCT
21
2004

Alpha Version of Gtk+ Port of KHTML

Hot on the heals of the port of Gecko to Qt comes a pre-release of a port of KHTML to GTK+. Released components include KJS JavaScript interpreter, KHTML rendering engine, Qt porting layer, WebKit API for embedding and a reference browser for demonstrating the functionality of the other components. Their website explains that this was done by Nokia Research Center. They hope to collaborate with another project also porting KHTML to GTK, Gnome Webkit. Footnotes has the story.

Comments

The same folks made Minimo (Mini-Mozilla). Seems like they are preferring khtml these days for embedded stuff.


By anon at Wed, 2004/10/20 - 5:00am

Or just evaluating all alternatives one after the other.


By Anonymous at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

Since GTK+ can run on Windows, will there be a Win32 port of this new browser? That will truly increase khtml's mindshare to be equal to gecko's.


By anon at Wed, 2004/10/20 - 5:00am

As mentioned, Gtk+ WebCore project provides a port of KHTML (from the Apple Safari code branch) to Gtk already. See http://gtk-webcore.sourceforge.net/

Making a port to Windows would be relatively easy to do by using the Gtk version for Windows. The main work items would be to remove a few dependencies on X Windows that are currently in their code, to integrate the Windows HTTP framework, and to make a nice Browser UI / Application on top of KHTML.

Such port using Gtk for Windows would probably be a good start. However, it would probably have suboptimal performance.

To get better performance one could remove the calls to Gtk in their porting layer and replace them by calling similar win32 functions directly. Surely, this would be a much bigger project, but the Gtk+ WebCore project has done common ground work already by making KHTML independent of KDE and Qt.


By Guido at Mon, 2004/11/15 - 6:00am

This is just getting wierd.

First someone ports gecko to qt/kde, now khtml is ported to gtk.

Are all the projects going to start playing rendering engine pass-the-parcel? (Or should that be parse-the-parcel? Ah- ha ha ha. See what I did there? Ok, that's enough)


By Robert at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

Agreeing on a common plugin API for HTML rendering engines would be a lot more useful than swapping back and forth.


By Lee at Fri, 2004/10/22 - 5:00am

KDE porting to GTK.
Seems that this is what this guys are making possible in not so distant future.

I foresee raise OSS projects that port KDE technology to GTK, forking around this project and other OSS kfriends (gfriends will be happy too help and to copy KDE technology to GTK).

Next features I guess we will see shortly are Kioslaves and Kparts ported to GTK.

Then the road is open for future of GTKonqueror, GTKate or even GTKDE.

What would the GTKDE community need shorty is an ability to "embed" a legacy K/QWidget in a GTK app - then the migration can start from top to bottom (e.g. initlally GTKate would be just a "Hello World" app that just embeds the original Kate and then starting from top to bottom would port anything).

Are there GTKDE volunteers?
(I am sure NOKIA would fund such project - seems that this is now a "common" goal)

PS: I am not sure if from business point of view if it would be cheaper for NOKIA to just buy Trolltech and relase Qt under LGPL/BSD instead of funding the GTKDE future of KDE.


By Anton Velev at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

Seems like a lot of work. From a business point of view, if Nokia was interested in Qt, they could just use Qt under either license Trolltech offers today. The GPL does not prohibit commercial use or profit, but if they just hate the GPL, Qt's other licenses compare reasonably with proprietary development suites.

My guess is they just like KHTML and GTK. Not the choise I'd have made (the exact opposite, in fact), but they're free to do what they like.


By ac at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

See, it's not the issue with buying license, but not having to buy it (e.g. freedom).
Companies like Sun and Novel for sure could afford this but they choose other toolkits although they were not superior.

GTKDE would definitely win a lot of corporate friends, at least they will have now one more option (right now only Gnome). KDE definitely is superior to Gnome in terms of technology, but unfortunately not very friendly to the corporate world right now, whereas the existanse of GTKDE initiative would turn the things into right directon.

GTKDE initiative already exists "virtually" but nothing "official". All this efforts to port stuff from KDE, or try to "dress" a GKT app to look like KDE app, or to use KDE file and print dialogs in GTK apps for me is just the birth of GTKDE initiative, and demonstrates the rejection of dual license "GPL or Pay" model.


By Anton Velev at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

For me it isn't, and this is the last we'll hear of it.


By Robert at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

I guess (I hope any fellow KDE developer support this claim) that a good part of KDE superiority comes simply from the Qt quality, and the inspiration from the Qt design put into kdelibs.

Besides I doubt about anybody else really willing a GTK+ based KDE; even more, GTKHTML still has Qt code running over a GTK+ wrapper with Qt interface.
It is NOT a real "native" KHTML, is still C++ code, is just a hack to get it running on top of GTK+.


By Shulai at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

I guess I don't see your point. You DON'T have to pay for Qt (I know I certainly don't). You can get the GPL version. You're free to use it for commercial and for-profit purposes. I don't see the problem at all, except for people who just don't like the GPL. And since Sun and Novell are sellng Linux, they clearly don't have a problem with the GPL.

Maybe you don't understand the GPL?


By ac at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

U just dont get the point. To link to a GPled library, your application has to be GPL. There is no other way. And if you dont want to release your application under GPL, u will have to link against a non-GPL library, which is the reason why most system libraries are released under a dual license of GPL and LGPL.

The fact that you have used the GPLed Qt for your commercial application just shows your lack of understanding and as I understand it, you stand a high chance for being legally confonted.

However, I guess you can have a non GPLed app if it is only for internal uses and isnt distributed to the general public.


By Sarath at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

> To link to a GPled library, your application has to be GPL.

This is a lie perpetrated by GNOME trolls and shows *your* lack of understanding of the GPL. All your application has to be is GPL-compatible.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS TO BE GPL.


By ac at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

Well i suggest that you read http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/opensource.html.

Here is a excerpt from that page:
"If you wish to use a Qt Free Edition, you must contribute all your source code to the open source community in accordance with the GPL or the QPL's license terms."
Now, either way (GPL/QPL) you have to release your source code QPL isnt exactly a license that most companies would choose to release their products on. Which brings me to my first point that to develop a commercial product you will have to purchase a commercial license of Qt.

Not that it is bad. Qt is one great toolkit and coming to think of it, in the era that prople buy M$ products, i dont see any harm in buying something that will ultimately help the free community.


By Sarath at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

Hey, jackass. Nothing you quoted from that page contradicted what I said. Take a basic course in logic or something...


By ac at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

So let me see. What license do you release your app under ? Just convince me (and trolls) that you manage to get away with your app under any commercial license using the GPL Qt.


By Sarath at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

BSD? LGPL? Who said anything about commercial? You said:

"To link to a GPled library, your application has to be GPL. There is no other way."

Now go away.


By ac at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

Hey... Even if you're right, there's no need to be rude about it.


By AC at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

Just back off, say you're wrong, and sod off.


By Joe at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

> You're free to use it for commercial and for-profit purposes.

This was from ur first post and it is the main thing why i did waste my time trying to educate you. Maybe you would like to clarify what exactly was on your mind when u said that the free Qt can be used for commercial applications.


By Sarath at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

I think it is you who needs to be "educated". GPL'ed software can also be commercial. you can sell GPL'ed software and you can earn profit from it. If you don't believe me, read what the FSF says about it:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

For the first few years of the GNU-project, RMS supported himself by selling Emacs.


By Janne at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

That was another ac actually, but whatever, he's right. Sorry for being rude, I honestly thought you were a troll by the way u rite & claim things 2 b tru wen der n/t.


By ac at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

> BSD?
I don't understand this. Qt is licensed under GPL or QPL. So how come there are legitimately KDE apps licensed under BSD (e.g. noatun) when they link directly with Qt?


By muhaa at Fri, 2004/10/22 - 5:00am

Read the QPL and you'll find out.


By Datschge at Fri, 2004/10/22 - 5:00am

Because the BSD licence allows you to do pretty much anything you want with the program except claim that you wrote it.

Releasing it under the GPL is one of the things you can do with it.

Noatun linked with QT is a GPL app. You do however have the option of separating the Noatun code from QT and using under the terms of the BSD licence.


By Jonathan Bryce at Mon, 2004/10/25 - 5:00am

The BSD license has nothing to do with this situation. Noatun can be linked to Qt/X11 even as a BSD app. This is possible since the one big obligation the QPL sets is that the app's source must be freely available. This is fulfilled with using the BSD, any other open source license allowing freely available sources would do so as well. Please read the QPL at least once.


By Datschge at Mon, 2004/10/25 - 5:00am

>To link to a GPled library, your application has to be GPL. There is no other way.

Only if you release the app. Also, it is GPL compatable libraries, which is not the same as saying GPL only.
Since most corporations do not release apps, they do not care. Also, many corporations have no issue with paying for a library which is solid. And that includes companies that selling closed software.

>which is the reason why most system libraries are released under a dual license of GPL and LGPL.

Most System libraries are under just the LGPL (which originally meant the library GPL).


By a.c. at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

>U just dont get the point. To link to a GPled library, your application has to be GPL. There is no other way.

That must be why the KDE libs are LGPL, right?
Please get your facts strait before spreading FUD.


By Andre Somers at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

Ok i will clarify my point once and for all. What i was saying was with regarding to using the free version of Qt in a commercial application. I never said that LGPL apps cannot link to a GPL library. The point is that keeping a application in a non GPL compatible license is impossible when linking to libraries that are GPL.


By Sarath at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

It seems - if I may add my 0.02$ - that you have a big misunderstanding about "commercial", "Closed Source" means.


By Harald Henkel at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

but why whould anyone want to use the free version of QT in a commercial application??? commerical company's want support, and they want to pay for that, actually most company's prefer paying for something even if almost the same thing can be downloaded for free (compare staroffice/openoffice).

so a commercial company prefers the comercial version of QT. they will get support for their money.

I dont see the problem. QT is a better toolkit than GTK, so the (small) amount of money a company has to pay (and they only have to pay if they want to make a closed-source program, which they shoulnt anyway) is no problem.

any company can use the free version of QT, as long as their app stays in house, or is free software. if they want to earn money by dis-allowing their users the right to see and modify and give away the source, well, let them pay, so the users get at least some improvements in QT for their money.

I think Richard Stallman should prefer QT over GTK... GTK allows company's to create non-free software without ANY contribution to the community. Trolltech (QT's company) forces them to pay them to enhance QT, so QT gets better, and the community can say: profit for us after all!

Dont use Gnome or GTK, it promotes NON-FREE SOFTWARE!!!


By superstoned at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

"GTK allows company's to create non-free software without ANY contribution to the community."

This is not true, they have to contribute modifications they do on on the gtk libs. As an example this is what happened with KHTML. Apple used it and had to give back all the modifications (according to the LGPL) which is (one of the reasons) why KHTML is much better now and who cares if we don't get the source of Safari?. It would be cool if another giant like Nokia could help improving KHTML, we would end up with the best HTML engine ever (although I believe this is already the case :)).

Remember that LGPL orders u to give back all the modifications u make to the LGPLed app or lib u're using but not the code of the actual app u're building on top of them (the LGPLed app or lib u're using).


By Pat at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

you say they CAN give things back. but they can also NOT give things back. with KDE/QT thats impossible... OR they create free apps, OR they pay Trolltech (to enhance QT)


By superstoned at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

if they modify the LGPL app (libgtk or khtml), they HAVE to give it back, it's an obligation, don't think that apple is just being nice.


By Pat at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

I was talking about using, not changing. I know changes have to be given back, gpl or LGPL, GTK or QT.

you can use Gnome/GTK to create a proprietary application and you dont have to give anything to the community, just plain profit. You can't do that with QT, because if you do, you have to pay Trolltech (and this money goes into QT) OR you have to make your app available under a free licence... thats what I meant. and I guess you understood it, but didnt want to?

by the way, the Free Software Foundation now says you shouldnt use the LGPL, and use the GPL instead. they also say L-gpl stands for Lesser-GPL, not Library GPL (anymore).

nice day.


By superstoned at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

"You can't do that with QT, because if you do, you have to pay Trolltech"

Unfortunately, Trolltech doesn't produce GPL only software, as an example the PIM application of there qtopia phone edition isn't free at all. At least when u use GTK to build an non-free app u're not funding another proprietary sofware. Plus if it wasn't for lgpl apple would have never picked up on khtml and look what happened to wine when they switched to lgpl.


By Pat at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

hmm, you're right. some of your money might go to non-gpl software. although almost all qt employees work (paid) on KDE :D so still :D

anyway, my point wasnt about gpl/non-gpl primarilly, but about GTK/QT. dont say GTK is more free - its like BSD/GPL. BSD might be more free, but allows for less freedom/in case of QT/GTK, GTK allows for less contribution to the community.

So instead of all these ppl saying "dont use QT its non-free" I'd like to state "use QT, it enforces company's to give back more than GTK". both arguments are true, in a way (btw note again QT is available under the GPL license, while GTK is under the LESSER GPL(LGPL), license).

I was (am) just tired of all GTK trolls.


By superstoned at Fri, 2004/10/22 - 5:00am

teste


By Breno at Sat, 2005/01/22 - 6:00am

It appears I'm arguing with the artist formerly known as Prince, everybody.

What "U" need to understand is that:
- If you derive your code from GPL'ed code, such as the Qt libraries, your code must also be GPL'd (you seem to get this point)
- You may sell your GPL'd app commercially for as much money as you wish to charge (this seems to be the tough one for you)

Now, I do understand, that if you just plain don't want to distribute your app under the GPL, you don't want to use a GPL'd library.

If you are confused about what the GPL does and does not prohibit, please read this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney


By ac at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

Nope it is nothing like that. Just that only mysql and qt are afaik the only popular GPLed commercial apps out there ... So i just assumed that most people would implicitly take it that very few companies will go on to release their product under GPL.

I dont kno who is Prince. Maybe a mistaken identity ???
Well i have no doubts that GPL allows for making money. ( Where would Qt be elsewhere ??? )


By Sarath at Fri, 2004/10/22 - 5:00am

From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

"For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public."

If making money is your goal, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to release under GPL, as someone could buy a copy and host a copy online accessible for free.


By Name at Sat, 2007/05/12 - 5:00am

I foresee raise OSS projects that port KDE technology to GTK, forking around this project and other OSS kfriends (gfriends will be happy too help and to copy KDE technology to GTK).

gfriends are happy when nerdiness is under control and you devote some time to them :-)


By Shulai at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

Well, it is kind of weird. Apple ported khtml to Mac OSX and got rid of Qt and don't really contribute back. Now Nokia ported Apple khtml back to Linux but wfor Gtk. I really don't know, but I think using this as a base and supporting both Gtk/Gnome and Qt/KDE must be possible. Since it is planned to put this Gtk khtml on a public cvs server, this brings the opportunity to attract more developers (i.e. not only KDE developers) to khtml.

Bye
Alex


By aleXXX at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

This would be unfortunate.

Since Qt is GPL, it protects the open source community. GTK is LGPL and leaves the open source world at risk, in the hands of economic driving forces.


By The observer at Thu, 2004/10/21 - 5:00am

QT is only free for *nix platforms. This is purely because of economic driving forces. GTK is free on all platforms it supports.
Is it the freedom of QT that keeps 90% of desktop users from running Khtml?


By tomten at Mon, 2004/10/25 - 5:00am

Bullshit. Qt/X11 and Qt/Mac are completely Free Software, and nobody hinders you or anyone else to port those to whatever other platform you want. You requesting free ports without yourself being willing to lift any finger on your own just showcases people like you as greedy, asocial bastards.


By ac at Tue, 2004/10/26 - 5:00am

My point is that there already exists great ports to other platforms and doing unsanctioned ports would probably prove tricky as most QT developers depend on the revenue the non free platforms provide.

>You requesting free ports without yourself being willing to lift any finger on your own just showcases people like you as greedy, asocial bastards.

I don’t need to lift a finger as I have Wxwidgets and GTK ;-) It just puzzles me that so many free software developers accept being confined to *inx platforms when the main selling point of the GUI they use are portability. But hey who am I to complain I’m just a greedy asocial bastard!
Boy you should really take a break from and the dot and do some anger management work instead.


By The Greedy Asoc... at Tue, 2004/10/26 - 5:00am

"Next features I guess we will see shortly are Kioslaves and Kparts ported to GTK."

You mean fuse-kio or?
But that's not just for GTK but for all linux apps.

http://kde.ground.cz/tiki-index.php?page=KIO+Fuse+Gateway
http://www.kalyxo.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/FuseKio


By peppelorum at Tue, 2004/10/26 - 5:00am

No! I think a common VFS library for all linux apps would be the right to do...


By xyz at Wed, 2004/10/27 - 5:00am

Pages