Native Win32 Port of Qt3 GPL Started

The KDE on Cygwin project, which produces ports of Qt and KDE to Windows using Cygwin and Cygwin/XFree86, announced that the native Win32 port of the Qt3 GPL library has been started, mainly driven by Richard Lärkäng at the moment. The plan is to provide a base for a future native KDE port. Several screenshots of the ongoing port are available. Richard is seeking developers, who don't have access to the original Qt Windows sources, to help him.

Holger Schroeder of Automatix GmbH, who started the native Win32 port of the Qt2 library and finished about half of it before license conflicts due to use of the commercial Qt version disallowed him to continue, will be present in Nov&eacute Hrady at the KDE Contributor Conference 2003 and give a talk about the "KDE on Cygwin" project and its current state.

Comments

by Datschge (not verified)

I hope it won't be a full featured Qt port but just enough to run some promotion-wise important KDE apps. There is no reason why people should get the impression a highly restrictive and expensive EULA-based system is allowing them to get everything for free. (I hope Microsoft will declare any execution of GPL'ed software under Windows as illegal in their EULA. =P)

http://www.cyber.com.au/cyber/about/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf

by Anonymous (not verified)

Drop QFileDialog ;-) - honestly I don't think this is an option.

by Francisco (not verified)

Make apps for LINUX!

I love Linux and KDE! KDE = Linux

just port to LINUX! w$ have ppl work for them... do not be stupid

by Anonymous (not verified)

> KDE = Linux

Wrong.

by Datschge (not verified)

For him it is, let him be.

by Jan (not verified)

I agree with most people here, this is really a shame.
Now when there are really some apps which are free and
just better than Windows we try to port them. People
will never switch from Windows if they can all the advantages
of the free software world without switching.
Whoever tries to make KDE run on Windows is doing
great harm to the free software world. SHAME ON YOU!!!

by *Legion* (not verified)

What you don't get is that this lays the groundwork for damaging the Microsoft stranglehold in the long run.

Yes, porting free software to Windows gives Windows users the benefits of free software without switching OSs. But what ties them to the Microsoft OS usually isn't any great respect or enjoyment of the OS itself, but rather the need for the tools available only on that OS.

A Windows user that relies on Word, Excel, Outlook Express, and Internet Explorer will not dream of switching.

A Windows user that relies on, say, KWord, OpenOffice.org calc, KMail, and Mozilla could consider switching, knowing that their tools are available on Linux.

OpenOffice.org and Mozilla are two very good first steps at bridging the gap and breaking the MS dependency. More would be good. It will still take time for OO and Mozilla to gain more acceptance, but the idea isn't to "win" overnight. It's to provide competition vs. Microsoft products 5 years down the road...

by tuxo (not verified)

> A Windows user that relies on, say, KWord, OpenOffice.org calc, KMail, and Mozilla could consider switching, knowing that their tools are available on Linux.
But why should a user switch if the tools she/he needs are all avaiblable on Windows? People honestly think that Windows is free for them as it came with their computer for no additional charge. Also, many people don't understand what an operating system is, for them it is part of the computer and they will therefore not change it unless there is a really crucial need to do so. People will also stay on Windows because like this they can have all the free software plus keep on copying proprietary apps like Photoshop etc.

Thus I think that it would be wiser to provide free applications only on Linux and other free operating systems. Furthermore, there should be replacements for the most important general purpose apps that behave similarily to what people are used to use on Windows. Like cars, there are many brands but it is very easy to switch from one brand to the other, as all cars have a similar human-machine interface and similar features.

by Enjolras (not verified)

What about when Dell starts offering a PC with Linux etc.. for $100 cheaper than it's Windows counterpart? If the consumer is comfortable with the tools and apps available on Linux, because they used them on Windows.. then their NEXT PC purchase is more likely to be a Linux machine.

It's impractical to expect ANYBODY to ever install a new O.S. on an existing machine. People will only switch when buying a new machine, and this type of work makes that MUCH more likely.

by tuxo (not verified)

> What about when Dell starts offering a PC with Linux etc.. for $100 cheaper than it's Windows counterpart?
1) With most computers sold you don't see how much costs the operating system and neither how much cost the individual parts in the computer. Note also that the price for Windows is much lower than $100 for computer assemblers.
2) M$ will probably lower even more the price for Windows. When it is in the range of say $30, it is still profitable for them and the user will not care anymore for alternatives ($30 more or less is not important, it's a mere 10% of a future machine costing let's say $300).
M$ will fight with all might to keep the preinstalled OS hegemony as they know that users don't care about the operating system, but they care as the one who provides the OS controls the API and also controls how information is encoded and transmitted and has thus the possibility to lock in users. This becomes even clearer when you have a look at future M$ technologies such as Palladium/TCPA: http://www.againsttcpa.com

by Penguin (not verified)

I DO know how much the OS costs. Two hundred fifty dollars. That's for people who try to get it "open-source" and can't access the security features. Linux doesn't need them.

by em (not verified)

Some IMHO invalid points people are making:

1. "This project is a waste of time that could be spent in other projects". Please remember that most people working in open source projects are volunteers. I already have to program what I'm ordered to in my job; in my free time I will program what *I* decide according to *my* criterions. This is explained in most FAQs about open source.

2. "This will harm migration to Linux". People making this point don't appear to have a very high opinion of Linux. KDE is indeed great software but Linux can stand on its own merits. If anything, being able to use the same desktop in Linux and Windows is one *less* reason to use Windows.

3. "This will destroy TrollTech as companies doing in-house development won't need to buy Qt". As I already pointed out in another comment, TrollTech itself offers Qt/Windows 2.3.1 under a non-commercial license at http://www.trolltech.com/download/qt/noncomm.html . Surely companies doing in-house tool development don't need the latest and greatest Qt yet TrollTech hasn't been destroyed.

by Erik (not verified)

3. You still do not seem to understand the difference between the GPL and the non-commercial license. GPL would allow in-house development at companies, but a non-commercial license does not. Please understand that in-house development at a company is commercial activity.

by em (not verified)

> You still do not seem to understand the difference between the GPL and the
> non-commercial license. GPL would allow in-house development at companies,
> but a non-commercial license does not. Please understand that in-house
> development at a company is commercial activity.

Well, IANAL and all that. But in any case, if TrollTech has been able to keep on offering Qt/Windows 2.3.1, whether it's because in-house development is prevented by its non-commercial license or for any other reason, why can't they do the same with the latest Qt/Windows versions? And no, "they probably have a reason" is not good enough. Unless TrollTech provides a very clear and concrete explanation of why this should not be done, I think this project ought to be supported.

by Ian (not verified)

Hey whats wrong with *nix`s ????

I can see QT/KDE going the same way many other ports have gone.
"Windows version gets more features and the Linux version gets left behind"

Why dont we just send money to Bill Gates, It would be much easier!

I say Forget Windows, lets build our own OS up first!!

Hey i would quite comfortably pay a small registration fee for QT/KDE if money is the problem!!

by Anonymous (not verified)

Money is always a problem: http://www.kde.org/support/support.php

by em (not verified)

> I can see QT/KDE going the same way many other ports have gone.
> "Windows version gets more features and the Linux version gets left behind"

Can you provide an example of any such case?

by dave (not verified)

Lots of people are claiming that this will not harm TrollTech.

TrollTech obviously disagree: they briefly released a GPLed version of QT for windows, and then stopped because it killed their revenue. Since then, they have not released a GPLed QT for Windows.

TrollTech probably knows what is best for itself much better than the denizens of the dot. So this probably _will_ harm TrollTech, and it's a bad, ungrateful thing to do.

by Anonymous (not verified)

> they briefly released a GPLed version of QT for windows

Wrong. Read the other comments before replying. *sigh*

by Dave (not verified)

I did read the other comments, esp. this one, which seemed to be informed:

Yes, at one point (and for 1 release only!), Trolltech released Qt 2.x [implied: under the GPL] for Windows. As was once said on the Trolltech mailing list: the results were disastrous, with a very sudden decrease in the number of sold licenses.

If that is wrong, my apologies. However, this doesn't change the underlying point that Trolltech does not now offer a GPLed QT for Windows, and TT probably knows its own interests best.

by Anonymous (not verified)

The parent of this comment, which let you imply GPL, was wrong. Read all of its followups.

> this doesn't change the underlying point that Trolltech does not now offer a GPLed QT for Windows

Which proves? The problem is not a GPL version or a non-commercial version but misuse. Same can happen if a company buys one copy of the commercial version and 100 developers use it (and then request support). And I'm sure that this happens.

by Dave (not verified)

As I said in the original post, I trust TrollTech's judgment better than yours or those of other dot posters. They haven't released a GPLed version of Windows QT, presumably because they think it would be bad for their business. What makes you think you know any better?

by Bryan Feeney (not verified)

Most software is not published. Most of it is
a) Developed in-house for internal use
b) Developed to spec by consultants for other companies for internal use.

In each case just one instance of the software is created. It therefore really doesn't matter to the companies developing it whether it's GPL or not, in the first case for obvious reasons, in the second case because the software is designed to spec and can't be used (at least not easily) by other companies. In both cases releasing under the GPL makes no commercial difference.

Most of Qt's business comes from selling licenses for these two uses. If a Windows port becomes available under the GPL, they will lose most of this business.

The "free" version of Qt2 was for NON-COMMERCIAL use. It could not be used inside a company at all, not even in the building! (read the license if you don't believe me) It could only be used by people on their own PCs at home doing their own thing. However people are dishonest, and judging by the comments above, Qt lost money through people using the non-commercial version in commercial settings.

It is important to realise that the GPL was never about freeware, it's about selling software, but supplying the source with it, and sharing technical knowledge. It isn't a perfect situation though. Qt, in fairness to them, tried to work their way around it with the non-commercial license, but it didn't work.

KDE needs Qt. It's an excellent toolkit, well worth it's cost. Trolltech needs to make money to keep Qt going. To do this they need to sell Qt licenses. I really don't see why anyone who wants KDE to succeed would encourage something that could hurt Qt.

And in case anyone asks, I have nothing to do with Qt, I'm mainly a Java guy with hopes of better things :) I have used Qt from time to time though, and it's one of the nicest ways of programming on C++.

by stephanh (not verified)

I fully agree with you.

It isn't very wise to dig the ground where one's stading on.
While the intentions are certainly of a good nature, it's a very bad idea imho. (reasons see the great explanation from Bryan above)

by Coolvibe (not verified)

It is.

Heck, it works for GTK too. There is a GTK for windows, and people use that. Does that hurt GNOME? No. Not that I like GNOME, but that's offtopic. I say this is a great effort. Having Qt apps for all (including the sucky) platforms is a great thing. It will not harm the open source movement or Trolltech _at all_.

Sure people might use it in-house, but that's okay. When they release, they either have to buy a commercial Qt license, or GPL their app. What's the problem here?

I for one applaud this effort. If I had some more C++ foo, I'd have helped this guy.

Oh, and quit spouting about Linux already. KDE works just fine on my Free/NetBSD and Solaris boxen. Oh dear, Solaris is a commercial platform! We can't have Qt on that! *gasp*

by Strider (not verified)

Your statement implys that GTK is as good or better a development enviroment than the native win API. GTK is NOT! Its a pain to develope in! QT (and Trolltech) make their money selling a better API than Windows API to windows users. You GPL this toolkit it will hurt their revenue! Don't believe it? Too bad! There is already proof that it has and does!

The other problem with the logic of your statement is that Gnome is not a company. It cannot be hurt as long as its developers are willing to continue working on it. In the KDE world we have PAID developers working FULL TIME on our toolkit (the basis of it anyway)... KDE will go on if Troll Tech is hurt... the problem is that we will loose alll of those full time, paid developers.

This project is a wast of time, effort, and is counter productive to OSS. Period!

Strid...

by Paul Selormey (not verified)

If you really cared about freeware hurting someone's revenue, I do not think you will work with it in the first place. Linux hurts MS revenue, will you claim that is also too bad?

by Datschge (not verified)

We shouldn't need to care about hurting anyone's revenue, except the one we base the whole framework on, and that's incidentally Trolltech's Qt. As someone else already put it above "It isn't very wise to dig the ground where one's standing on."

GPL makes all soft must opensource . How can u sell an opensource soft on close source Windows ? Trolltech Qt is free for non-commercial . When we don't use it for commercial , it's ok .
BTW , the "signal and slot" type of Qt is good , but Windows has MFC, WTL , wxWidgets and several GUI libs . If a company see Qt is good and they want to make their products in Qt , they must buy it . How a GPL progs can make they more profit than a commercial softwares ? Let's compare between Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise Server.

by anonymous (not verified)

After reading several of these replies I've realized that free software isn't free at all. Programmers need to eat just like everyone else and the money to pay them has to come from somewhere. Based on the comments I've read it seems TrollTech has chosen Windows developers to be the ones to pick up the tab. This seems to be the case since everyone is afraid that TrollTech will go bankrupt if they don't get their Windows license revenue. Thus, it seems *quality* software can never be truley free unless we developers all take jobs at fastfood restaurants to pay the bills and write code by night for the greater good. Sadly (or gladly) this is not the world in which we live.

I've also read something along the lines of "free software shouldn't be available on a closed source OS." This has been countered by stating that QT works on many commercial closed source OSes. It seems the issue is not free v. commercial software but more MS v. non-MS users. This seems counter-productive in my mind if the goal is to win converts. We gain nothing my charging Windows users, they have to pay anyway. If we really want to loosen the hold MS has on the market we must embrace their users not isolate them. Churchs don't charge sinners to hear sermons. However, those people who believe the teachings of a particular church have no problem donating money in the name of those beliefs. It seems that the free software model *requires* the exact *opposite* approach. This makes it hard to convert people don't you think?

I find it unfortunate that a company making such an excellent product that is in such wide use would have to go out of business because the *minority* of their users stopped buying. If this is actually the case, and I'm not convinced that it is, then perhaps that company should re-evaluate its business model. And indeed they will if things start to get bad. Perhaps this is what everyone is so upset about. Not that Windows users are getting free software but that the software won't be free at all anymore.

by Datschge (not verified)

No, the case is this:

Most people supporting Free software are doing so for the ideology behind Free software, they take Free software code according to its rules and decided to not abuse it and give back. The few people who code and think code should be ultimately "free" (as in free also for abuses) often do put their code under the BSD license or into the public domain.

What you are talking about is the very unfortunate situation on the Windows side where there is a huge 'free (as in gratis) riders' culture, people who have no respect for anything regardless if it is commercial software, shareware (which barely exists anymore), freeware or Free software. This led to a wave of adware driven software which has a higher possibility of ensuring an income for developers of seemingly gratis software, this also led to a rampage of piracy there which is holding back the adoption of Free software, and last but not least this led to abuse of Free software against its rules set by the license which is then getting dangerous when the receiving and potentially abusing audience is taking and demanding more than it is ever willing to give back. In Trolltech's case the issue was glaring: A Qt version for Windows allowing the development of Free software existed, but it was heavily abused for non-Free software use cases not allowed by the license, the very area Trolltech's livings depend on. Through this Trolltech learned it lesson and will not again make a Qt version for Windows freely available in foreseeable future.

Such a glaring disrespect does not exist among Linux/Unix as well as Macintosh users, that is why Trolltech has no problem releasing a GPL'ed version of Qt on those platforms. Furthermore Trolltech has good contact to many Free software developers, some which requested an allowance to port their Free software to Windows and then got a license for this purpose.

by Tahir (not verified)

a windows port would be good. I will try to explain through this scenario:

1/ Joe finds brilliant free software {konqueror, openoffice.org, kpdf, ...} on the internet and thus 90% of the software he uses is free and open source.
2/ Don, a friend of Joe is slightly more experienced in computer matters and uses Linux. He explains to Joe that more or less all the software he uses can be used on linux as well.
3/ Joe tries out a "noob" distro such as ubuntu or better kanotix, quickly downloads all the open source apps he used under windows and then he adopts linux as his desktop OS.