![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
I'm no authority, but IMHO > In article <20030619141443.GR29247@fs.tum.de>, > Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> wrote: > >There's no license reason today why there are two big > desktop projects > >(GNOME and KDE). > > There is. If you want to develop a commercial application under > KDE you need to pay TrollTech for the Qt license. Basically > TrollTech controls all commercial KDE applications. No, you don't, IFF you distribute the source code. Doesn't make a lot of sense though. So consider, a for-profit company licenses QT for a proprietary app. They send bug fixes/enhancements to QT to TrollTech. If these migrate to Free QT, you're ahead of the game. If they don't, what did you lose? > Which makes no sense. You're not at the mercy of Linus or the > kernel developers, neither at that of the KDE developers, but > TrollTech controls the KDE desktop wrt commercial apps. No, they don't. KDE uses the GPL for QT. If I build a commercial app using KDE, it is GPL. If I build a commercial app not using KDE, but using commercial QT, that has no effect on the KDE desktop. > What if TrollTech decides to only license (or sell) Qt > to, say, Microsoft? What does that mean for, say, the Kompany ? They can't. They released the code under GPL. They can stop maintaining that code, and continue on a proprietary track. If they did, what did you lose? In summary, QT -> GPL, GNOME - GPL, what about _that_ makes one or the other inherently preferable or better? P.S. for once I am in complete agreement with larry m. ;-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:36 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||