KD Executor Released for KDE Usage
Thursday, 8 April 2004 | Jpedersen
Klarälvdalens Datakonsult AB has released the first beta version of KD Executor 2.0, our tool for testing and automation. KD Executor is a record and playback tool for Qt and KDE applications. In addition, it contains a test environment which uses this record and playback tool for testing Qt and KDE applications. We are proud to release a free version (free as in beer, not as in speech) of this tool to the KDE community.
Why free as in beer and not free as in speech?
Klarälvdalens Datakonsult AB has always been very dedicated to Open Source Software development, all of our employees are involved in KDE development, and most have a record of open source involvement in the order of magnitude of 10 years.
Much of our software is dual-licensed under the GPL and a commercial license, and therefore it has been a great worry for us that we have so far not been able to make KD Executor available under GPL.
We have reached the conclusion that this is likely never going to happen, as this would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for us to sell any commercial licenses, but fortunately we have found a way to still make it available to our fellow KDE programmers.
To use it you need to set a license key (the version will expire in three months at which time the final 2.0 version should be released; that version will not be time-bombed). To use this key, put the following lines in your .zshrc or equivalent export KDABEvalKey=69e9ec5ff9e9689c
KD Executor mailing lists
Those of you with an interest may wish to join the mailing list dedicated to KD Executor discussions.
Comments:
Why? - John Tapsell - 2004-04-09
What's the use of this? What does it provide that normal test units and dcop scripts can't?
Re: Why? - Richard Moore - 2004-04-09
Simulation and recording of user actions is something that DCOP and our current tests can't really manage. This has the potential to be very useful.
Re: Why? - James Richard Tyrer - 2004-04-09
Just exactly what are normal tests? Oh Well. What this type of tool can do? I see two things. 1. Regression testing: A suite of tests can be developed that every release MUST pass before it is kicked out the door. 2. If you have some sort of intermittent problem this would allow you to do the same thing over and over till it screws up. -- JRT
Re: Why? - John Tapsell - 2004-04-09
regression testing in 'normal' code (non-gui) isn't difficult (although if this tool can reduce the burden, I'd be interested in how). Regression testing the actual gui... I suppose, but I'm not convinced that in practice it is needed. If you have some intermittent problem again you could just run your normal regression tests a lot directly calling the functions, and not needing to do the testing through the gui.
Re: Why? - James Richard Tyrer - 2004-04-09
The purpose of this tool *IS* to test the GUI. Regression testing is very important. See for example: http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73379 Regression testing should have caught this bug. Without it, KDE-3.2.0 was released without it being completely fixed. Intermittent problems are usually in the GUI code -- unknown interactions with other stuff. -- JRT
This is certain to come up (again and again) - Martin - 2004-04-09
As a free community I strongly feel it would be a regressive step to accept KD Executor in it's non-free state, regardless of it's technical merits. Perhaps initially efforts should be focused on exploring the problems Klarälvdalens Datakonsult AB face with GPL'ing (or compatible license) KD Executor?
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - Cloaked Penguin - 2004-04-09
Agree. Exactly how may it be useful for me, a KDE application developer? How hard would be to create similar functionality for kdesdk? Is it worth the time?
Usefullness - David Faure - 2004-04-09
Imagine you are debugging a problem that happens in a KDE application, after creating a document, creating 2 objects, doing some action, and then opening a dialog and clicking somewhere. For every little code change you make and want to test, you have to perform the above steps again and again. With kdexecutor, you can do "kdexecutor myapp", set to recording, perform all the actions above, and it gets saved to a .kdx script. Then you can make a one-liner script that launches kdexecutor on myapp, to replay all the actions at a very fast pace. This saves a lot of time, since the application is now very quickly brought to the state where the bug can be seen.
Re: Usefullness - Martin Galpin - 2004-04-09
Is that an acknowledgment that it would be worth developing a similar application under the GPL or that you support accepting the non-free software? (or perhaps it's neither...) What are your thoughts?
Re: Usefullness - Kraig - 2004-04-09
I don't think its helpful to open source development to get to political with companies that are trying to assist open source development. Linux uses bit keeper in kernel development and its not open so what the problem? getting to cared away with licence issues only turns people off to the whole thing.
Re: Usefullness - Martin Galpin - 2004-04-09
...and as I'm sure you are aware, the Bit Keeper issue has been a very controversial one. Forgetting the importance of licensing is something we must not do as free operating systems move to the mainstream. To do so would be to forget what the FOSS movement is about, and why it began. Do we want to end up right back where we began?
Re: Usefullness - Joe - 2004-04-09
Yeah, ok. When you code in the kernel, you can have an opinion. If this helps KDE, then so be it. It is more than what we had before, so we aren't losing anything. Shut up and code.
Re: Usefullness - Cloaked Penguin - 2004-04-09
I'll shut up, but probably won't be coding this until I find a "crash me" sequence related to user input. And even then, maybe a separate app will not be the "right way" and I will help improve dcop instead. Or recode my app's dcopness to hack a way through. The idea is cool, but not cool enough (for me) as to justify not having it straight in kdesdk.
Re: Usefullness - Guest - 2004-04-09
FWIW, I agree with him. A "shut up and code" approach is exactly what'll get your software owned by some company you've never heard of.
Re: Usefullness - David Faure - 2004-04-09
Tell me exactly how using kdexecutor gets your software owned by some other company? This is nonsense. All in all, it's pretty sad. KDAB makes a gift to the KDE community, and people bitch about non-free-software. Yet when Lindows gave KDE developers access to their (closed source, too) OS, it was pretty cool. And when Insure gave KDE developers a license to use their tool... well, the dot didn't exist at the time, so people had nowhere to rant about non-free-software. :(
Re: Usefullness - John Tapsell - 2004-04-09
Because people are worried. Say that people put a lot of time and effort into making regression tests for their projects, and then the company asks for more money, or goes bankcrupt, or anything like that.
Re: Usefullness - David Faure - 2004-04-09
What does this have to do with using KDExecutor in KDE? Nobody is asking for money in that situation, it's a *free* (as in beer) gift. If the company goes bankrupt, well, I'm quite sure the source code would then be released. But anyway, we're not forcing anyone to use it, nor to put a lot of effort creating lots of regression tests with it. I see it much more as a tool to assist debugging, and in such a case there is no long-term commitment to the tool.
Re: Usefullness - John Tapsell - 2004-04-09
The license expires in 3 months - after which you have to hope that they will give the next one away for free. And you are "quite sure the source code would then be released". Well I don't see any contract on that like bitkeeper has... Why risk all the development on making tests on a "quite sure" ?
Re: Usefullness - David Faure - 2004-04-09
The license expires in 3 months only because it's a beta version. After that we (KDAB) will release the final version, and we surely want people to upgrade to that one to avoid getting bug reports on the old version. The plan is that the final version will have an unlimited (in time) version available for KDE developers. No, there is no such contract for "releasing the source code" yet. Come on, it was pretty important to have one for Qt, since all of KDE is based on it, but one for a testing tool? Why do you need such a contract just to use KDExecutor to automate a few testcases for easier debugging? Oh wait, I forgot. You criticize but don't even work on KDE...
Re: Usefullness - John Tapsell - 2004-04-09
Why do you say I don't work on kde? I haven't done a huge amount sure, but I have plenty of patches in kde and a few in the linux kernel, and tons of specialist open source software. Despite the merits of the software, you can't have an free project rely on the whims of a closed source company. What stops this company waiting till 6months down the line when there are hundreds of hours of tests written, and then demanding a large amount of money for the software? Or changing the license, forcing everyone to accept the the new license? (Of the tool, not the tests of course). Or if the company goes bankcrupt? And so what if they say they won't. What if they get bought out by another company who does. Or sell the product to another company. No, it's too risky for a too little gains. Look at bitkeeper. It was finally accepted because bitkeeper wrote several contracts to ensure that it will always be around (opensourced if the company goes down). It was also accepted because there was no other tool, and writing one would be a huge amount of effort.
Re: Usefullness - David Faure - 2004-04-09
When will you understand that KDAB is only composed of KDE developers? Why would we (I work for KDAB) demand money from our fellow KDE developers, or change the license to hurt them??? We're all KDE developers, and up to now we rather trusted each other, and we would certainly not want to lose this trust. Besides the idea doesn't even hold commercially (no kde developer would pay to use the tool, that's for sure). Once again, this is only about a tool that helps debugging. I don't suspect KDE developers will write hundreds of tests with it; we (KDE, this time) are not known for spending too much time on regression testing, unfortunately - otherwise there would already be much more unit testing in kdelibs... The "dependency" on kdexecutor is only in your mind. The whole point is to make our fellow KDE developers benefit from a useful tool, while still being able to sell the tool to companies. Can people stop seeing evil conspiracies every time the word 'company' is mentionned?
Re: Usefullness - Source - 2004-04-09
"What stops this company waiting till 6months down the line when there are hundreds of hours of tests written, and then demanding a large amount of money for the software? Or changing the license, forcing everyone to accept the the new license? (Of the tool, not the tests of course). Or if the company goes bankcrupt?" Can you answer it? What if this happens? What's the problem? I don't get it.
Re: Usefullness - John Tapsell - 2004-04-09
Ah sorry. My point was that you could end up with a lot of test scripts that you couldn't use because you can no longer use the software.
Re: Usefullness - Anonymous - 2004-04-09
What's the problem if they change the license in the future? KDE developers will still have a valid license for the version they are using. No one can take tht away from them.
Re: Usefullness - Source - 2004-04-09
Take KDE default icons, for instance. They are free as in speech but developed with non-free tools (not even as in beer!): http://linuxcult.com/?m=show&id=157 Same in this case, there is a non free tool to do the job, any developer is free to get a licence and use it if he wants too, (including KDE developers). Now they can get it for free. And how are they risking development by using it? If for some reason they have to stop we'll be back to where we were before... "Ah! but it would be better to have a free as in speech tool!". Yeah, there are many apps around missing in KDE, and we can't blame it on commercial apps giving free licences because they aren't.
Re: Usefullness - John Tapsell - 2004-04-09
I don't know about the icons. If the icons are based on propreitry file formats, then that is dangerous as well. Look at .gif for example.
Re: Usefullness - Source - 2004-04-09
The icons were created with commercial tools. The icons are free. Understand where I'm getting at?
Re: Usefullness - John Tapsell - 2004-04-09
First of all, you probably mean proprietry. Second of all, you missed my point about the file format being the important bit.
Re: Usefullness - Source - 2004-04-09
No I mean commercial! The software used by everaldo to make the icons is commercial. The format is not proprietary. And that's my point exactly, the important bit is the file format not beeing proprietary, not which tools were used.
Re: Usefullness - Chakie - 2004-04-09
Would you please quit whining about the license stuff? Don't use the tool if you don't like the license, but let others enjoy it if they need something like that. You don't even seem to care a bit about these kinds of tools, so please stop flaming KD for giving the KDE community a gift.
Re: Usefullness - cm - 2004-04-09
> If the company goes bankrupt, well, > I'm quite sure the source code would then be released Maybe Klarälvdalens Datakonsult AB and KDE e.V. could set up an agreement like the "KDE Free Qt Foundation" to remove any doubt? I've seen the foundation being mentioned quite a few times in discussions as a strong argument for Qt. Maybe develop a standard procedure for this kind of situation? This could encourage other companies to do the same... But even if they don't... a gift is a gift and the offer is appreciated.
Re: Usefullness - David Faure - 2004-04-09
This is actually quite funny when you realize that the CEO of KDAB is a board member of KDE e.V. ...
Re: Usefullness - Anonymous - 2004-04-09
Even president of KDE e.V.
Re: Usefullness - David Faure - 2004-04-09
Right. So Kalle would be effectively signing a paper with himself. LOL. I think people should just stop and realize that KDAB can only be acting in KDE's interests, given that KDAB _is_ only KDE developers.
Re: Usefullness - cm - 2004-04-09
> Right. So Kalle would be effectively signing a paper with himself. LOL. Well, why not? :) Legal stuff is sometimes strange... > I think people should just stop and realize that KDAB can only > be acting in KDE's interests, given that KDAB _is_ only KDE developers. Yes, I know. The point is that a) written guarantees seem to be important for some people (I'm *not* talking about myself in this case, I'm not worried about KD Executor) and b) I can imagine situations where the current owners of the company are no longer free to release the source code, e.g. in case of bankruptcy. For example, in Germany there's someone called "Insolvenzverwalter" who chooses what to do with a bankrupt company's assets, AFAIK, so that suppliers' claims are satisfied as much as possible. (IANAL, though.)
Re: Usefullness - David Faure - 2004-04-09
I see your point. This makes sense. I'll talk to Jesper and Kalle about it.
Re: Usefullness - Kraig - 2004-04-09
People are making decisions based on emotions and not logic. These are the GNU fanatic types.
Re: Usefullness - Guillaume Laurent - 2004-04-09
> Because people are worried. Oh please, give us a break. I'm reading this thread and it's clear that absolutely none of the people complaining about this have any clue on regression testing or even software development in general. They are arguing for the sake of it. We're extremely grateful that KDAB made this tool freely available, and we'll certainly be using it for Rosegarden (for the record, nobody in the rg dev team was stupid enough to complain about the license).
Re: Usefullness - David - 2004-04-09
Well, I don't think we should get into arguments about licenses. If there is a need for a free version then there will be one. They will then just have to accept that they will sell less licenses as a result. If people like this and feel fine, then there will not be so much need for a free version because people will be happy. Make sense?
Re: Usefullness - John Tapsell - 2004-04-09
Sounds good. I'm getting flamed here because I bring up concerns on just accepting proprietry tools in the development cycle. And my concerns are practical. As long as there are no patents in the fileformat, and it can be easily rewritten if the company goes bad, then sure, go for it.
Re: Usefullness - Spy Hunter - 2004-04-09
I think you're underestimating the usefulness of this tool. What if it came with every KDE installation and was activated by the Report Bug menu item? Users could submit bug reports with full testcases, extremely easy to reproduce, with hardly any effort. Also, KDE could have a suite of automated regression/crash tests using a tool like this. Shame about it not being GPL though.
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - ac - 2004-04-09
KD Executor has another kind of freedom you failed to mention. 1) You are free to use it. 2) You are also free not to use it. Unfortunately, KD Executor also takes away your freedom: 3) You are not free to forbid others from using it freely. So I hope you understand this, and are able to live with the fact that others may use this tool even though you yourself don't want them to. A free world is sometimes hard to live in...
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - Martin Galpin - 2004-04-09
If you're thinking I was forbidding, then you are misunderstanding. I am simply voicing my concerns for our community. As a community however, we should stand as one and that is why it's necessary to have these discussions.
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - ac - 2004-04-09
Actually, it's more like he who codes (tests) decides.
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - Eric Laffoon - 2004-04-09
Not to question where you are in the community, I'm just not familiar with you. On the other hand when you talk about who the people behind Klarälvdalens Datakonsult AB are you are talking about people who have been central to the KDE community for years, who also happen to have a business in professional software development. They have been involved with a number of projects including the contracts by the German government where they contributed back to the community with the Kolab server and were involved with changes to Kmail and some of the work that lead to Kontact IIRC. One of their developers is the guy who came up with kparts, and if you know the history there and the work being done by some of these developers you'd probably be singing their praises for how key their contributions have been and continue to be for KDE. I am as big of an advocate of free, as in speech, as any reasonable person. It was really my love of free software that caused me to take my own money, at one of the most personally and financially difficult times of my life, and sponsor ongoing development of Quanta. As much as I believe in free software I don't doubt these people's motivations for releasing to us, free as in beer, for a second. As much as I wish all such tools arrived free, as in speech, I believe it is in my best interests as a KDE developer and user for these guys to be able to make such decisions on a business basis. The simple reason is, it helps enable them to continue to produce KDE software that is free, as in speech, which they have a long and distinguished record of doing. All I see is a company that has put time effort and money into their passion for KDE and worked their contracts to enable them to return software to the community. In this case they saw this as the only way they could make the gift, and in fact they did gift it to us. If you have a problem with that fine. Don't use it. All I can look at is who is doing what, and the reputation and commitment to the community of these developers is as strong as they come. It really sucks to take your time and money, gift it to people in the form of software and then be criticized because it fails to conform to someone's ideals. The alternative here would be for them not to have gifted us. Let's keep in mind that what is being offered here is free access to a tool that is being commercially developed to help improve professional software development on our platform. Think about that. That brings users and developers to KDE. This can also help us improve free, as in speech, KDE software. When people I admire a great deal offer to help me for free I don't squabble about the fact that they need to make a living too. As a KDE software developer I want to say thank you guys. I can appreciate the process you went through in this decision and that you didn't have to do it. I for one appreciate it. I encourage those who don't like it to exercise their freedom to ignore the gift of this software. I only hope doing so doesn't cause unnecessary bugs to be left in their software for their users to endure, assuming they are actually developing software.
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - David Faure - 2004-04-09
Thanks, Eric. It's good to see that some people understand what a gift is. All the best, David.
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - Martin Galpin - 2004-04-09
You can understand and appreciate gifts at the same time as questioning their nature.
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - Datschge - 2004-04-09
But doing that publically is highly unpolite toward those who a giving the gift. If you are questioning the nature of one's gift you can still reject it, dragging the sponsor into mud merely for "questioning the nature of a gift" is a joke.
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - Martin Galpin - 2004-04-09
Doing it publically is both inevitable and necessary, it's something we need to debate.
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - John Tapsell - 2004-04-09
You are basing your argument on the unspoken assumption that they have nothing to gain from this. They are probably doing this to advertise their product (not a bad thing). Besides, just because it's a gift, doesn't mean it's a good thing overall. Try giving linus a gift of code, and see if he'll add it to the kernel without interrogating the code.
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - Datschge - 2004-04-11
Well, the "unspoken assumption" you mention is actually part of the meaning of the word "gift" at least where I live (Germany). Words (luckily) seems not to be watered down that much here, so for instance one isn't allowed to make ridiculous offers like "buy two, get one for free". "Gift" with the purpose of getting hidden gains to the donor are called "Nepp" which is a very negative term (closest translation would be "rip-off"). Also while discussing about "gifts" even with the extended range of meanings the term apparent has in English people should keep in mind that KD Executor is meant as a tool easing the testing of apps during development, so the whole "clueless children are lurked into a trap" freedom-rip-off case doesn't apply, neither are normal users a target nor does this app add a hard dependency without which a project would die. The only valid issue I see is what's going to happen to KD Executor in the theoretical case of bankruptcy of KDAB, David Faure mentioned above they'll look at this issue and I trust them to find a good solution for that as well.
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - Debian User - 2004-04-09
Hi Eric, very well said. I think there is nothing much to add. You are doing a great job explaining the background and have the authority. That said, you likely agree that nonetheless, either Trolltech themselves or KDE will come up with something like the too anyway. Everybody would have to admire the easy reproducing of bug reports and integration into KDE. Somebody in the community will want to replace it with something free sooner or later anyway. And that said, thank you for the tool. It's a help NOW. Yours, Kay
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - Jasem Mutlaq - 2004-04-09
It says exactly why it will not be GPLed, because you cannot sell GPL software for the software itself (not the support). Since anyone with the first GPL copy is free to release it and give it to others. It doesn't make sense commercially. I think the anti-commertionasim attitude in the "open" source community is immature at best. Remember that those people working in the company need to pay their bills and support their family, GPL doesn't give them that. The only (or main) method to generate income from a GPL software is from support/training contracts. To suggest some company can sell a GPL software for the software itself is a complete joke.
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - Cloaked Penguin - 2004-04-09
For some people, to suggest some company can sell software for the software itself (open or closed) is a complete joke. That people see pure software companies as an anachronism.
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - Guest - 2004-04-09
And it's also entirely unethical, of course :)
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - Richard Moore - 2004-04-09
To be blunt: I couldn't care less if it's open source. If it is useful I will use it. If someone writes something that does the job decently that is open source then I might switch. The problem with GPL-ing a tool like this is that people would use the GPL version and not pay. It's not like a library where it is linked into the distributed code, so there is no way to prevent people ripping you off.
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - Martin Galpin - 2004-04-09
...and to be blunt: "Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. ``Don't bother us with politics,'' respond those who don't want to learn." (RMS, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html).
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - Richard Moore - 2004-04-09
Yeah, but I don't think open-ness of code is a moral issue. It's nice sure, but hardly essential. I use the GPL and LGPL because they're convenient, not because I agree with RMS and philosophy.
Re: This is certain to come up (again and again) - Datschge - 2004-04-09
...and to add something to it: "Value your friends, or you will lose them". You are either from outside anyway or you have no idea how misplaced you sound by stating this kind of quotes.
Squish - Anonymous - 2004-04-09
How does this compare to Squish (http://www.froglogic.com/squish)? Do they compete or complement each other?
have something similar - Paul Koshevoy - 2004-04-09
I've had similar functionality for a while now. I started implementing the event trail record/playback functionality back in 2001, or maybe earlier. It is rather easy to trail-enable each Qt application. Basically all you have to do is inherit QApplication and override the notify(..) function. There you can watch for events that are directly generated by the user, such as mouse moves & clicks, keyboard presses, window resizing, wacom tablet events, etc... The events that are directly generated can be saved to a file. Later, the application can be rerun and play back the saved events, thereby reproducing a crash or whatever. I use this all the time in the program I am working on. Check it out if you care (Please don't kill my DSL line) http://www.aragog.com/~paul/homedir/cxx/bernstein/the_trail.hxx http://www.aragog.com/~paul/homedir/cxx/bernstein/the_trail.cxx Paul.
Re: have something similar - Richard Moore - 2004-04-09
This looks interesting, I'll check it out.
Deciding on Free/Open Source - Guest - 2004-04-09
Guys, if you don't believe in the GPL, at least have the guts to say so. No one's convinced by this "we wanted to, but just couldn't" approach. Everyone releasing Free software weighs the pros and cons. The difference is that some of us aren't as self-motivated as others.
Re: Deciding on Free/Open Source - David Faure - 2004-04-09
I'd like to remind you that KDAB provides two of its commercial components, KDChart and KDGantt, as GPL libraries. For libraries it's quite doable, to release them as GPL, and sell it for commercial application developers. Everyone wins. But for an application? If KD Executor was GPL, we wouldn't sell it at all anymore. The GPL doesn't make any difference between "using the tool for free software" and "using the tool for commercial apps"... So don't give me "you don't believe in the GPL" or "self-motivated" arguments. Apparently you are one of the few people who work on free software all day, all week and doesn't care about eating and paying your rent? Yeah right. It's quite funny to see someone question the self-motivation (related to KDE) of Kalle (president of kde-e.v., kde developer since the very beginning) and his employees (we're all KDE developers!).
Re: Deciding on Free/Open Source - David - 2004-04-09
Well, I think that saying that a company like Klarälvdalens Datakonsult doesn't respect the GPL, given their track record of KDE development, is rather crap to be honest. Software has to be funded and has to have a working business model - whether through a community effort or through a licensing type approach. For this reason I hope that Trolltech never LGPLs Qt for any reason whatsoever. They could think about a small developer addition, but if I'm developing my own proprietary software I want to make sure Qt continues to be really actively developed.
Limited use - Guest - 2004-04-09
The problem with testing GUI apps isn't in being able to push the buttons automatically. It's that there are an almost infinite number of possible combinations of button presses. Recording a particular sequence of presses solves very little of this issue. You either need to push every available button in every possible window in a random manner, or you need to release it to a large audience with random intentions.
Re: Limited use - cm - 2004-04-09
I agree that it'd be a lot of effort to cover a GUI app thoroughly using those automated tests. I colleague of mine has a similar problem testing a web app. But I still think it is a useful tool: - It ensures that the normal functionality is in order. Grave errors will pop up early. - Every time a bug from bugs.kde.org is fixed a new test could be created to "prove" it and to make sure it stays fixed. - It's probably helpful during debugging if a bug is reproducible but requires a lot of steps to do so.
Oh Dear - David - 2004-04-09
When I see flamewars like this I'm none too happy about the future of free and proprietary software. We aren't going to see free software absolutely everywhere and proprietary software developers must realise that they do not have a divine right to sell software. If there is demand for a free version, there will be one, no question about that. Software does need to be funded, whether that is with money or with spare time and hard work. It isn't free, but people only ever see the money. I'm rather disappointed that people cannot use a bit of software without thinking that there is some massive conspiracy theory, and it doesn't make me hopeful of the future. Do we want software companies to write proprietary software on KDE, as an extension to the great free software we have?
Re: Oh Dear - Debian User - 2004-04-09
No.
Re: Oh Dear - David Faure - 2004-04-09
Of course we do. Would you rather they keep developing software on Windows? I'm happy everytime I see a new commercial product for KDE. It proves KDE is a good desktop, and good development framework.
Re: Oh Dear - Kurt Pfeifle - 2004-04-09
### I'm happy everytime I see a new commercial product for KDE. It ### ### proves KDE is a good desktop, and good development framework. ### I fully agree. Regarding "aKaDEmy", I am thinking of even including a special section/track into the 2nd weekend ("User and Administrator Confernce") sessions and the related Call for Papers to highlight such "ISV" commercial product developments using Qt and/or KDE. There are lots and lots of them, we just need to get a few to showcase their products during the event with a presentation to make the public more aware of it. It would also help to present Linux in general as a viable desktop system. I hope there will be some submissions covering this aspect once the CfP is out. I hope each of you who has personal contacts to ISV Qt/KDE developers will appruach them in person and point them to the CfP....
Re: Oh Dear - David - 2004-04-09
Well I can tell you that I would love to see more proprietary software written with Qt and for KDE. Qt is a fantastic development toolkit, and hopefully, with all the great freedesktop stuff like QtGTK etc, and a way of making Java apps fit in we will have development options in KDE for more than just Qt. "Would you rather they keep developing software on Windows?" I develop on Windows, and frankly, I'm looking to see the back of it at any point in the future. When Longhorn comes around we are going to see many companies faced with a difficult decision about where they go, and they are going to be forced into that decision. It isn't going to be pretty, and it isn't going to do the IT industry any favours but it needs to happen. I hope there will be great free software alternatives with the ability for sustainable and sensible proprietary software to thrive.
THANK YOU! - Alex - 2004-04-09
I think KDAB has done a great thing by presenting KD Executor as a gift for OSS. I know that the tool is proprietary, yet as long as it is used to make OSS I would not mind. The most important goal is to improve OSS like KDE, hwo you get there is less significant. I also think we can trust KDAB. As David Faure has said over and over again, the company is composed of KDE developers, there is no reason for them to act against KDE. Event he president of KDAB is the president fo KDE e.V. so there is nothing to worry about yet. My only concern is about the future, what if the company goes out of business, what if it has an ownership or so many more people are hired that only a minority is composed of KDE developers. These are the fears everyone has when there is a commercial entity. Therefore, I STRONGELY SUGGEST that if KDAB wants OSS to stop being reluctant on using their tools simpyl because KDAB is a proprietary company they should make a pact which states that OSS will ALWAYS have free acess to KD Executor even if ownership changes. Also, if the company goes out of business, KD Executor needs to be released as OSS. (LGPL, GPL, BSD?) I am aware that this would mean that the president of KDAB would be signing a pact with himself and much of KDAB would be signing the pact with themselves, yet this is the only way to be able to fully use KD Executor and maybe even establish a framework on it with no worries. Or maybe the easiest thing to do is just to release KD Executor under a dual license as Trolltech has done for Qt. GPL for OSS and proprietary for proprietary software. If the company goes out fo business or changes ownership in the distant future, there would still be the GPL version. THIS IS THE PROVEN METHOD TO WORK and BEST FOR BOTH WORLDS. KDAB will get much more publicity, testing and widespread use of their tools while KDE developers will get better tools to make KDE releaseas of even higher quality. THAN YOU AGAIN!
Re: THANK YOU! - cm - 2004-04-09
> Or maybe the easiest thing to do is just to release KD Executor > under a dual license as Trolltech has done for Qt. > GPL for OSS and proprietary for proprietary software. I'm afraid that model doesn't work here. There's an essential difference between Qt and KD Executor: Qt is a library that is *linked to* when creating products. A company needs to buy a commercial license in order to write closed-source software (== income for TT). KD Executor *is* a product that can be *used* without such restriction even to auto-test closed source software (== no income for KDAB if it were GPL)
Re: THANK YOU! - cm - 2004-04-09
To make it more clear: There is no such thing as a "GPL for OSS". It's either GPL or it's not. The GPL does not discriminate against the *use* of GPLed tools in closed-source software development. Imposing such an *additional restriction* would itself violate the GPL and would thus create tons of new license problems.
Can't they invent a new license? - Alex - 2004-04-10
A license that is the LGPL but only if the code it is used to test is open source. Or would that be relying too much on people's honesty? That would be impossible to enforce I guess...
Re: Can't they invent a new license? - Scott Wheeler - 2004-04-10
Then that wouldn't be the LGPL. You can't add additional restrictions to the license and still call it LGPL, and by the FSF's definitions it wouldn't even be Free Software with your suggested modifications.
Grmbl - Roberto Alsina - 2004-04-09
We have a bunh of free equine orthodontists in the house! This thread just pissed me off. Ergo, I intend to write a tutorial on the use of this thing as soon as I come back, and evangelize its use to hell and back. Whatever it is that this thing does ;-)
Re: Grmbl - David Johnson - 2004-04-09
How pissed are these free equine orthodontists? Do they just get their kicks by complaining about stuff, or are they willing to put their money where the horse's mouth is? If the latter, I am willing to create (or help create) an open source testing and automation tool, if people will pay me to do so. And to avoid all "GPL is hostile to business" arguments, I would release it under the BSD license. If you're serious about your concerns, contact me off-forum.
autogenerated screenshots - bangert - 2004-04-17
could kdexecutor be used to automate the generation of screenshots? i guess, it would need some sort of "break point" support or something like that hhm...