Re: SEUL: Free Enough?

[jfm2@club-internet.fr]

> jfm2@club-internet.fr wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > I know I am just kicking a dead horse horse here, but there are some
> > > things I would just like to point out.
> > >
> > > 1) SEUL is not the FSF or Debian.  Although we may be using Debian as
> > > the base distro, it is not necessary to maintain the 100% free standards
> > > that Debian has.
> > 
> > If you are speaking about KDE and Qt the problem is not freedom but
> > the dangers for Linux of having most of its X programs (KDE has the
> > potential of becoming a federator) depnding on a non-free library.
> > Better not promote KDE.  That does not mean than I am against
> > including small Qt-based programs and Qt itself.  But KDE the answer
> > is no.
> 
> Read the Qt license.  They only charge for the development libs if one
> is constructing commercial applications.  Using the Qt libs within a
> business setting incurs no costs.  As to the future dominance of Troll
> Tech, and their ability to change the license suddenly, that is a
> non-existent threat.  Who said Linux users don't engage in FUD?  :)
> 

I had read it, and I am probably one of the few KDE opponents to have
done it and know than many people exgerate its dangers.  A few weeks
ago I posted the following:


I have seen too many absurdities about Qt.  So it is time to put
things right.  Note than I am on GNOME side against KDE.

Points:

-Why GPL is irreversible
-Qt license
-Qt in GPLed programs
-Qt in commercial and shareware
-Qt against Motif
-The _real_ danger of Qt (What happens if the licence changes).


1) Why GPL is irreversible

Imagine this.  Linus trying to make Linux commercial.  (No he will not
try, he is a nice guy).  The facr is than Linux contains many parts
who are not from Linus so Linus is not sole owner.  Because software
derived from a GPLed program must remain GPLed Linus could not base on
present Linux because of all the GPLed but non-Linus parts in Linux.


2) Qt license:

You can redistribute Qt.  You can run programs with it.  You can use
it for writing free programs (the distribution of source code is the
criteria for free in Qt license).  You cannot modify it.  You have to
pay for using it in commercial software (I am not shocked by this
restriction).  Last time I checked you had to pay if you were writing
_any_ (free or not free) kind of MS Windows software.  The later I
find an excellent idea :-)


3)  Qt in GPLed programs.

Can you include Qt in a CDRom?  YES.  Infomagic does.  The licence
allows redistribution and it does not enforce giving Qt for free.

Can you include KDE or any other Qt-using programs in a CDROM?  Yes.
GPLed and LGPLed software are explicitly allowed to use Qt for free.
And Qt licence does not condition its use to the fact than the program
must be distributed gratis (it would no longer be GPL) but in the
distribution of source code


4) Qt in commercial and shareware.

Here you have to pay.  The cost of Qt is not too much of an issue in a
comercial firm: a programmer costs over 150$ a day so if Qt allows
shortning the time of development then the cost is rapidly recovered.

However the cost of Qt would be an obstacle for people developping
shareware, specially for those people for whom the shareware licenses are
only a nice income bonus and not their main activity.



5)  Qt against Motif in commercial software.

Motif is cheaper for developpers but Motif makes for a longerr
development cycle than Qt.  More important Motif using programs do not
sell well in Linux world because you are forced to use static linking
thus making a big and slow software.  On the other hand every Linuxer
can have Qt for free if all it does is running programs with it, so a
Qt based program will sell better than a Motif one in Linux (not in
commercial Unixes) because you can ship dynamically linked versions.


6) The _real_ danger of Qt (What happens if the licence changes)?

If tomorrow Qt license is modified so you cannot get it freely what
happens?  Nothing in a short term.  You have a legal copy of Qt and Qt
license allows redistribution so we can continue including a copy of
Qt along each copy of KDE.  We can continue including it in CDROMs.
We can continue writing GPLed programs with Qt.  Nothing changes.

What is wrong then?  The problem is than we are not allowed to modify
Qt so programs using Qt would be hampered by a frozen library.  The
effect would only be noticeable after some years when the free Qt
would have become obsolete compared to modern toolkits.  That would
not be a problem if only a few small programs a la EZPPP used Qt, the
problem is than the project becoming the standrd desktop for Linux
will cause than most of ythe X software for Linux will be sooner or
later be rewriten for its toolkit.  So if KDE becomes the standard
desktop for Linux sooner or later most Linux X software would use QT
and then if Qt changes licence that would be bad for Linux.  Bad but
not catastrophic: remember than all waht happens is a frozen library.
_NOTHING_ more.  Linux people would have to rewrite Qt based software
but they would have plenty of time for doing it.


So I oppose KDE but please not be hysterical about the subject.  I do
not want than distributions base their desktop on KDE.  But pricvately
I use KDE for impressing Windows users.  And it is very efficient in
this role.  :-)



Conclusion: The problem is not so much Qt as KDE.  KDE would be a
heavy weight who can satellize all X Linux around it and so around Qt.
That is the reason it is important to have an alternative to KDE based
on a free toolkit, and having that alternative win.  I do not want to
help spreading KDE.



> Also, what about statically linked Motif apps?  Although they are
> developed using Motif, the user has nothing to do whatsoever with the
> use of the Motif libs to develop the program.
> > 
> > >
> > > 2) Some very nice software is not free, sometimes this software is the
> > > best of it's breed, as well.  Our final goal is to creat a _Simple End
> > > User_ Linux distro, not a _Most Free_ Linux distro.  There really is
> > > quite a difference.
> > >
> > 
> > I have nothing about including non-free software if its licence is
> > acceptable.  Eg we need graphics to impress users.  A modeller would
> > be fine.  Amapi is shareware for Linux but you can use it during a
> > whole year so I think it is acceptable to use it if we don't find a
> > free modeller good enough.
> 
> Amapi sounds even more restrictive than the Qt license.

Amapi is only an app not something having all X Linux based on it.

> > 
> > > 3) Does a new user really care?  More likely than not they won't give a
> > > damn about source code.  We will, of course, educate them about free
> > > software, and if they want to hack around in source code, the time has
> > > come to get Debian or Red Hat.
> > 
> > Distributing source code is a legal obligation on GPL software.  Ie if
> > you don't offer you are incurring in piracy and the author could
> > have you prosecuted.
> 
> That is true.  But if we use KDE, the user probably will not care
> whether or not the source for Qt is included, or if the source for Motif
> is included, or if the XFree86 source is included, etc.  Obnviously,
> source for GPL apps must be on distro CD, and available from the
> Internet.  I am just saying the average SEU really doesn't care a lot
> about the availability of source code.  Knowing that it is available
> should give them a warm, fuzzy feeling, but it doesn't help them get
> their work done.

That is not the problem.


> >
> 
> When I became a new Linux user, I found Nedit the best X-editor around. 
> Enough like Windows programs to be easy to use, but plenty of options
> and features to make it powerful enough for most things I needed to do. 
> I have, since then, switched to pico and emacs(x), but I still find
> Nedit a great compromise between ease-of-use and power.
> 

Emacs is an immensely powerful editor.  Many users do not need a
powerful editor so there is no reason they learn it.  I find immensely
stupid the tradition of forcing people to learn VI just because it is
the traditional editor.

> I am also running KDE durrently, along with FVWM2 and AfterStep. 
> Although KDE resembles Win95 in some aspects, this is good in some ways,

And what?  Third rate hackers think than using user-hostile software
is a proof of manhood.  "Microsoft makes bad operating systems but
their user interfaces are quite good".  The infamous traitor saying
that is Linux Torvalds.  There is no shame in getting ideas of
Microsoft's users interfaces.

> and I find myself more productive in KDE than in FVWM2 (less screwing
> around with .rc files :-).  KDE would give new users a comfortable
> feel.  The only thing stopping KDE, however, are the Qt libs, which as
> far as the end user is concerned, do not make a difference.  THAT is who
> we should be concerned about, the end-user, not the FSF religion.
> 
> 

Don't accuse the FSF.  They are religious but intelligent men.  The
problem is the religious stupid men.  :-)

-- 
			Jean Francois Martinez

"For drinking muddy water if that is the water of truth,
            for that the camel is needed"