I don't know much about GNOME, but it seems, that it needs glibc, so we won't have it until the 6.0 release, but anyway, now that Qt will be free available (-> c.o.l.a.:"The KDE Free Qt Foundation") maybe the GNOME project isn't that important anymore?
Bodo, please read that post you reference again. Qt is not free and will not be so until Troll Tech goes out of business or something.
All that is guaranteed is that if Troll goes under, Qt can survive by becoming free software. That doesn't solve the real problem that Qt is *not* free software and as such we (Red Hat) will not ship it or anything that relies on it.
[Warning, rant ahead]
Hmm.. Perhaps I am out of line here, but I find this rather annoying. I believe this is the SuSE mailing list, so I would tend to assume that Bodo's comments referred to what is important to SuSE Linux in particular or perhaps the world in general, rather than what is important to Red Hat Linux.
Yes, this is correct. I am not trying to impose any will here, just point out Red Hat's beliefs and philosophies and the reasons behind them. Everyone is still free to do what they want and I will not *judge* based on that (well, at *least* not in this forum, anyway :-). My point was merely to correct or at least clarify the statement that "Qt will be free available". That implies that it is not now, but that it will be. In reality, it will not be any more free than it is now *unless* Troll decides to go out of business or sell it or something drastic. Bodo probably already knew and understood this and slightly mis-spoke. I don't know. Either way, I just don't like to sit idly by and allow misinformation to be spread, intended or not.
Additionally, Bodo states "Qt will be free avilable" which it IS! Qt is
Then how "will" it be if it already "is"?
free for the purposes of the KDE projet and all other non-commercial efforts. It may not be "free software" by the GPL definition of such, but perhaps this merely serves to underline the problems with the term "Free Software". However it is freely available, and free from cost for the KDE project.
Yes, but it is *not* "free software". It is also not "freely redistributable", which is part of the basic problem. Bug fixed versions are not distributable at all until Troll pulls your fix in, either.
I remain unconvinced that the Troll boogeymen will jump out and attack the Linux world as soon as they are entrenched in power. The source
In fact, I'm fully convinced that they would *not* do that. I'm not scared of this at all. I like the folks at Troll Tech and admire the fine work they do quite a bit. This is not a fight.
code is available. Diffs from the field are accepted, frequent views are made availble, you can modify the source. The functional
You can not redistribute it, though.
differences between free software and Qt are, as I see it
1) Troll could take the source and make it proprietary.
Answer: No, they can't, this is what the foundation is about.
Yes, and this is good.
2) If people want to add features to Qt that Troll doesn't, they're out of luck.
Answer: This is true. However, I have heard exactly 0 examples of such things, even in a hypothetical context. Troll knows what they're doing and they have the best graphic toolkit around.
Well, the perfect example is that you are developing an app and you find a bug. You *must* wait on the official fix from Troll even if you can fix it yourself. While this might be "acceptable" to many, this situation does not occur with truly "free software".
3) Commercial companies will have to pay Troll to develop Qt apps for KDE.
Answer: This is true. Firstly though, it is a small barrier to companies who expect to make any decent amount of money off their products. Additionally, this is a tradeoff from commercial companies having to worry about GPL taints from GTK. You may discount such as silly, but it's a real concern for companies trying to sell traditional-model apps into this unix world.
Small barrier or not, it is a barrier that does not exist with truly "free software". In short, I just don't care to see Qt labelled as "free". In the "free software" sense, it is not. That's my only real gripe with any of this...if SUSe wants to ship Qt, that's fine with me. I'd much rather they stuck with Gnome and GTk+, but they have no obligation to listen to me.
In short, it is Red Hat's policy to ship only "Free Software" with their distribution. Well perhaps I'm missing something, but I see on your website that Red Hat ships with Metro-X, BRU2000-PE, and RealPlayer/Encoder/Server. Perhaps you are referring to the freely downloadable version of Red hat?
The "official" boxed set does. There are a couple minor differences, though. One, there is an official "Red Hat" distribution available for free that does not include those components. We distribute it ourselves via FTP (at $12k per month for our net connection!) for free and we also distribute it on our PowerTools CD set. Other folks sell it for as little as $2. The other difference is that none of those commercial parts are development environments. We will not include a commercial development environment simply due to the fact that we had more than a handful of paying customers who complained that they would switch to another distribution since they could no longer feel safe in their ability to buy RH and install it on a commercial developer's workstation without having to worry about that developer using a library that weren't freely usable.
As far as I can see, Red Hat is taking the stand that Free Software is the Right Thing To Do. And while I have trouble integrating the reselling of various no-source products bundled with Red Hat into that philosophy, I will accept that their internal product is intended to stay pure.
Those are simply add-ons much like the 30 day installation support that our product also comes with. Like I said, if you don't want them we do offer a *complete* alternative that does not include them.
However, I have a different view. I do not see Free Software as intrinsically necessary. I see it as a powerful tool for enabling technologies, work, and progress. I myself have spent a relatively minute, but existant, amount of time attempting to submit assistance to a few "Free Software" projects such as the VIM editor. However, I'm for
Woo-hoo! Vim ROCKS! :-)
things that work. I bought OSS because it worked. I plan on purchasing XiGraphics AccelX because it works much faster than the Xfree servers. KDE and Qt work, and work well. There exists no danger of it becoming closed.
I recommend Red Hat to many people side by side with SuSE. Some denigrate SuSE for shipping with commercial apps. Some find it useful for the same reasons.
Do we not have enough space for more than one idiology in the Linux community?
Yes we do. I hope we always do, in fact. I just pointed out what I thought to be a small error in Bodo's wording and followed up with some commentary on why Red Hat won't ship it. Given that we won't, it's obvious that we'd rather other Linux distributions didn't either. But we're certainly not going to run around condemning them (especially on their own lists!) for it. Please note that the only reason I hang out here is to see what's going on with others in the free software community. Occasionally I'll chime in, and since I work for Red Hat it will generally be the Red Hat view of things. That doesn't mean anyone has to listen or follow Red Hat. It's just our view. I hope it's welcome even if ignored. :-) --Donnie -- Donnie Barnes <A HREF="http://www.redhat.com/~djb"><A HREF="http://www.redhat.com/~djb</A">http://www.redhat.com/~djb</A</A>> djb@redhat.com "Bah." Challenge Diversity. Ignore People. Live Life. Use Linux. 879. My Dad used to say I have deceptive quickness. I'm slower than I look. -- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e