Why Debian Doesn't Include KDE
 by Joseph Carter, in Editorials - Sat, Jun 17th 2000 23:59 UTC

Joseph Carter has spent "countless hours" working on licensing issues with the KDE team in the hopes of fixing the problems that have kept KDE out of the Debian distribution. In today's editorial, he gives his view of the impasse that has been reached and why it's been a loss for everyone in the community.

I can't say I expect this message to be seen at this stage amidst all the confusion that a KDE-license-problems message on Slashdot usually entails, but I feel I must nevertheless write it as someone directly involved.

I am a Debian developer. I'm also one of the people who worked with Troll Tech in writing the QPL, the license under which Qt version 2 is licensed. I made it through several revisions with them and am even mentioned on their page for the efforts I put into it. I took a lot of fire from a lot of people on a lot of different sides for my work. I'm not sure it was worth it.

My goal was a license which met our Debian Free Software Guidelines and was also compatible with the GPL. I succeeded with the former, but apparently not the latter. The reaction from commercial distributions such as Red Hat often makes me wonder if my "victory" in a free Qt license was actually miserable defeat.

The draft license seen by me last before release of the final QPL was GPL compatible. I was proud of it. So, it seemed, was Troll Tech. And then the final license was released, undoing the parts of my work which made the license GPL compatible, but retaining enough to satisfy the definitions of "Free" many distributions (including Debian) use.

But the license issue remains. Qt is not non-free software. But it's not GPL compatible either. Some KDE core developers admit this privately, but won't do so in public because of the implications: that much of KDE is not legally distributable until they contact some people that are damned scarce these days and make the necessary arrangements.

In short, the GPL says that the whole program must be under its terms before you are allowed to distribute it. It makes a specific exception for things like proprietary libcs and the like, but the exception to that is that you can't distribute them both together, so we'd be stuck even if we considered Qt a system library.

We could distribute the source, but what would be the point in that? Go get it from KDE; theirs is more current anyway. We also don't see much point in splitting off those parts of KDE we can legally distribute because it'd just create version mismatches for people. There is a bit of a moral aspect, too: KDE weakens the legal force of the GPL, and many Debian developers (myself included) take at least some exception to that.

We've been quite open to helping KDE fix the problems with their licenses. I've spent countless hours on it personally and I don't even use KDE (and am not likely to in the future - though I might use a GPL-compatible Qt in my own code). What we're not willing to do is slap a band-aid over the problem and hope it goes away. Three years have already shown us that it will indeed not go away.

The problem is KDE's to fix. They know it, but they'd have to publicly admit they were wrong if they did that. It's not something they're prepared to do. Instead, they continue to defend the position they know full well to be wrong, and they do it by attacking the language of the GPL. Rather than admit they are wrong, they would try to tear down one of this community's central licenses! This is not good for the community -- but I feel they view their own pride as more important than the people they claim to be working on KDE for.

I did say this isn't Troll Tech's problem, and it's not. (Well, that's arguable, I guess, considering that some of the KDE core developers are also Troll Tech employees, but I'll give some benefit of the doubt there..) Troll Tech, however, is in the perfect position to fix the problem once and for all. How? By fixing the QPL.

The QPL does have some mistakes. Some of them aren't serious, some of them are. At least one of them is directly my fault. When this whole mess came up the last time (about 6 months ago), I offered to work with Troll Tech again to make the QPL compatible with the GPL. The issues aren't that big of a deal and Qt is well-enough maintained that their biggest fears at the time of writing the original licenses have proven themselves not a problem.

Troll Tech seemed interested (or the person I spoke to seemed so, anyway) and told me they'd send me an email in a few days after they talked with RMS about the points I brought up. I never heard back.

Flash forward six months. The KDE license issue still isn't resolved after literally years of trying with both KDE and Troll Tech. Will it ever be? I highly doubt it at this point. Enough people are content with it and the commercial distributions are secure in the knowledge that KDE won't get them sued. KDE is easier to use and probably more stable than GNOME. (They both suck if you ask me -- I didn't get involved with this because of wanting KDE in Debian..)

KDE's march toward the Artistic license has been somewhere between dog slow and dead stop. They're in no hurry; only a few distributions such as Debian have decided not to include KDE, and of those that remain, only Debian is likely to change its mind if the licenses are ever straightened out. Frankly, they don't care enough.

For all the good and bad that's come of my work on the Qt license, I've often had to ask myself: Was it really worth it? Honestly, I'm no longer sure. Would I do it again? Only if I were sure the people involved were sincere about really fixing the problems, not making good press on Slashdot by claiming they're fixing the problems.

I've done enough, taken enough flack, watched and been involved with enough flamewars that I know it has to be that way. It HAS to be; otherwise, at the end of the day (or week or month or year as it has come to be with KDE and Qt), nothing really changes except how much you really care anymore. Oh, yes; get involved with this kind of thing with any less than the full support of the people you're working with and you will be burned out or bitter (perhaps both) before you see anything positive happen. And it's really sad, too. I didn't lose the battle for a GPL-compatible Qt. We all lost, and we lost more than a lot of people think.

Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> is a 22-year-old student at a local college in Modesto, CA. He's the leader of the QuakeForge project, a Debian developer, and the guy who helped write the QPL to make sure it's a free license.

T-Shirts and Fame!

[Comments are disabled]

Referenced categories License License :: OSI Approved :: GNU General Public License (GPL) License :: OSI Approved :: Q Public License (QPL) Topic :: Desktop Environment :: K Desktop Environment (KDE)

Referenced projects Debian GNU/Linux - The Universal Operating System. KDE - A powerful graphical desktop environment for Unix workstations. Qt - A cross-platform development framework/toolkit.

 Comments

[»] Qt on GPL
by nateman - Aug 18th 2002 12:37:23

I thought that Qt was released under the GPL as
well as the QPL, least it says so on FSF's
license list.

[reply] [top]

[»] Right decision
by denis barthel - Aug 14th 2000 07:05:51

I've been working with KDE for a few years and turned over to GNOME a year ago. I admire the work the KDE-guys have done, but I admit to the point that KDE, as long as it is not really free, is an invitation to commercialise software-projects after having them tested for a while as free ( see kISDN ). This is dangerous for Linux. By side, IMHO the KDE-Desktop is much to full and loud. I prefer more elegant and clear GUI's as Wmaker in general.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: KDE and Debian Again
by XyzzyOn - Jun 23rd 2000 13:06:48

Interesting quote from the GNU licenses page:

"However, if you have written a program that uses Qt, and you want to release your program under the GNU GPL, you can easily do that."

Doesn't this end the entire argument?

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Debian and KDE, again
by Michael Fowler - Jun 22nd 2000 19:26:16

XyzzyOn stated:
> So the Debian developers consider the QPL unusable because
> it's incompatible with the GPL, yet GNU states that the Perl
> Artistic License is NOT compatible with the GPL

This is incorrect, as the GNU list of licenses very explicitly states. Perl's Artistic License provides the GPL as an alternative.

Please, in the future, research your material a little better. I think everyone here would appreciate it.

[reply] [top]

[»] Off topic: Making Command Line the default for MSwindows9x
by David Pace - Jun 22nd 2000 14:45:56

(A reply to a previous rant on this thread.) Here is how: http://www.ctyme.com/msdos7.htm

[reply] [top]

[»] Debian and KDE, again
by XyzzyOn - Jun 21st 2000 21:43:17

Mark Mealman wrote:
"Debian makes full use of apache and perl. In fact perl is an integral part of the debian packaging system."

"1. Violates the GPL."

So the Debian developers consider the QPL unusable because it's incompatible with the GPL, yet GNU states that the Perl Artistic License is NOT compatible with the GPL, but Debian includes it anyway, and, as you say, an "integral part of the Debian packaging system".

So, Debian is selectively discriminating. That makes it so much better.

Sounds more and more like they are picking on the QPL and none of the other licenses that are GPL incompatible.

"Either way, you are in violation of copyright law.

Got it?"

I do, but I don't believe that you do.

[reply] [top]

[»] What!?
by EM - Jun 20th 2000 06:28:57

Leon Brooks wrote:
Now, the choice isn't so clear. On one side, Gnome seems to be improving faster than KDE, and the Enlightenment that it's based on improves as well.

Well, two points; First, all major development on KDE has been towards KDE2, so if you're running KDE1.x (which you would be with Mandrake) you will notice no major improvements. For an accurate comparison of the state of the art, you need to compare a KDE2 beta with HelixGnome. Point 2: HelixGnome has dropped enlightenment as the default window manager - and just as well for reasons I won't go into here.

In contrast, consider the swiss army mail client being spawned by the Magellan project. This mail client is clearly intended to replace Outlook. It looks and feels somewhat like Outlook. It's quite clearly single-purpose, quite clearly wants to be Outlook. But it's not that much more extensible than kmail. Er..pardon? My understanding is that Magellan is supposed to be a Lotus Notes for Linux. I'd say it looks and feels like Notes not Outlook.
In fact, the Evolution project (by Helixcode) looks far more like outlook than Magellan does.
If you're going to be so subjective in your analysis, at least try to get your facts straight.

[reply] [top]

[»] Meet in the Middle?
by Sutic - Jun 19th 2000 20:53:27

I doubt there is anyone here who believes it to be inherently wrong to distribute KDE with Debian, if it weren't for the licensing issues - that is, if the QPL was changed, or the GPL was altered, or a GPL:ed alternative to Qt came down from Heaven, having KDE in Debian would be at worst an Uninteresting Thing, and at best a Good Thing.

The problem with the GPL is that I can't legally share a GPL:ed program compiled with my Borland C++ for Windows compiler, since it would link to Borland's proprietary libraries.

So if my friend, who uses Windows for Very Good Reasons, comes along and asks me to give her a copy of a GPL:ed program she needs on her system, I can't give it to her.

And that, IMO, really bites.

Of course, I could compile it with CygWin, or install BC++ or my friend's machine and compile it there, but then what am I doing? Using loopholes in the GPL! The GPL is then not more than a severe pain, and not any help at all for me, or the author of the program I'm sharing.

Do any of you think that my action, that of helping my friend, should be illegal? I don't. I believe that it is covered under the freedom of helping your neighbor, which RMS is all for. (I doubt that RMS means that one should only help friends if they run free operating systems.)

But the GPL is now an obstacle.

My proposed remedy: Give he GPL a thorough workover. Start by stating exactly what the aims of the license is - is it to uphold the four freedoms, is it to keep free code isolated from propritary - thus creating a growing, free codebase, is it to further the GNU project (and whatever aims it has). Then define some priorities: Is it more important to help your friends, or to keep the code untainted by not linking to proprietary libraries?
After that: Clean up some fuzzy issues, like static vs. dynamic linking to libraries. As I understand it, I can dynamically link a GPL:ed program to a non-GPL:ed library, as long as it is dynamic linking. A minor issue, but there's the possibility of loopholes here.

At the moment, I don't think the GPL properly expresses the intent behind it. I must also confess that I'm a bit sketchy as to exactly what that intent is.

As for the QPL: With KDE being GPL:ed, and KDE essentially prompting Trolltech to make Qt Free, one would think that compatibility with the GPL would be top priority. A free software license that is incompatible with the GPL is like a Windows program that won't run on x86 hardware. It is a car lacking two pistons: it may make some noise, but it isn't going anywhere. TrollTech - it is in your interest to make QPL compatible with the GPL, unless you intend to resrict Qt to tools like Borland's Kylix. And you are smart (Qt shows that) enough to know that without my saying so. That's why I can't keep the flames back form this paragraph.

As for KDE: Nice desktop you got there. I like it and I use it and I support it. I really mean it. If it weren't for you, I wouldn't use Linux at all. But presenting RMS as a nutcase on your website isn't really the level of discourse any of you would proudly stand for, right?

As for a conclusion: Of course, there's a lot of pride on both sides. Time will tell if they'll remain entrenched or drop the pride and work toward a solution. I for one will not think less of the side that starts, and I believe that a meet-in-the-middle approach between the two camps will result in Good Things for everyone. Straddling the fence does not necessarily imply getting impaled on it.

But that's just me.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Meet in the Middle?
by Carlo Wood - May 25th 2002 10:32:43


> As I understand it, I can
> dynamically link a GPL:ed program to a
> non-GPL:ed library, as long as it is
> dynamic linking. A minor issue, but
> there's the possibility of loopholes
> here.
>
> At the moment, I don't think the GPL
> properly expresses the intent behind it.
> I must also confess that I'm a bit
> sketchy as to exactly what that intent
> is.
The intend of the GPL is to allow everyone to freely
reuse your code, without any restrictions. But at the
same time preserving that freedom for others for
the resulting derived work.

This is a good thing.

But, the GPL makes an error in its implementation
(which is why I hate it and won't use it when I don't have to)
by making it impossible to use a mixture of source files
with different licenses, in which case you are not allowed
to distribute the resulting binary.

In my humble opinion, a better license would be one
that preserves the rights for the original ("GPL"-ed) code
but not for added code, unless the new author wishes
to use the GPL for his own code too. This could be achieved
by demanding that re-used code needs to be in a (source)
file with the same license, but newly added headers may use
a different license and other object files or libraries that is
being linked with should be allowed to have any license
as well.

The GPL attempts to give even the people who use (buy)
binaries that contains GPL-ed code also access to the
source code, but errornously demands that ALL sources
of the whole binary must be available. Why not just of the
GPL-ed part that is being used? That way people could
use free software, add significant work using a propietary
license and actually make money if they can find buyers;
but their users would have access to all files that contain
(bits of originally) GPL-ed code and could decide to write
the missing (propietrary) parts themselfs OR buy the product.

Seems fair enough to me.


--
Carlo

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Freedom - Webster's definition or Debian's?
by J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) - Jun 19th 2000 15:43:35

Regarding the topic: the term "free" when applied to licensing issues means many things to many people. On the basis of long-time discussions regarding licensing issues, the Debian project has chosen to use a set of guidelines, the DFSG to facilitate discussion of licensing freeness. We believe it to be a good embodiment of e.g. the FSF's notion of "freedom".

And, as stated, if the Debian project doesn't want to include something because of a disagreement with licensing, fine, thier choice. But to insinuate that everyone else, including Troll Tech, is wrong and should conform to their way is not freedom, just a different form of oppression.

Erm, where have we been insinuating that Troll Tech is wrong? Joseph has worked with Troll Tech in constructing a free software license (the QPL) which suited their needs - there is no wrong or right about it. Regrettably, they choose not to make the QPL a GPL-compatible license, which would have provided a nice way out of the KDE licensing mess. Granted, the QPL isn't the license I or many others in the Debian project would have used, but as authors of Qt it is their right to determine its licensing terms, and I'm among the many people who are happy they've made Qt free software.

[reply] [top]

[»] Sarcasm. Learn it. Love it.
by Mark Mealman - Jun 19th 2000 12:56:58

"As stated, their choice to do so. How many Debian servers are running apache or perl or a combination of both? I'd bet quite a few. Wouldn't that mean that the community of Debian users which, I belive, out number the amount of debian maintainers are speaking about their feelings on the licensing issue? Their concern is not the purity of the goal of the Debain project, but using the software they want to use and agreeing to licenses they want to agree to? "

I think you missed the sarcasm in his post.

Debian makes full use of apache and perl. In fact perl is an integral part of the debian packaging system.

Just because Mandrake and RedHat ship KDE with their distributions doesn't make it legal. This is an issue of law, not opinion. Currently by shipping KDE under a GPL using a QPL QT does one of 2 things:

1. Violates the GPL.
2. Violates the QPL.

Either way, you are in violation of copyright law.

Got it?

Debian has always been a distribution that pays attention to the details. The developers read the fine print. Until the licenses on either the GPL or QPL change to where it would not be a violation of law to ship KDE they will not host KDE packages. And personally, I don't blame them.

This is not just a KDE issue. Currently qmail is source only in Debian for problems with its license.

[reply] [top]

[»] Licenses incompatible with GNU
by elleron - Jun 19th 2000 12:20:02

It will come as a surprise to alot of people as to just how many licenses the GNU project considers incompatible with the GPL. Their license page makes for interesting reading. The short list of licenses incompatible with the GPL in their opinion is:

1. The original BSD license
2. The apache license
3. The zope license
4. The IBM Public License
5. The LaTex Project Public License (LPPL)
6. The Mozilla Public License
7. The Netizen Open Source License (NOSL)
8. The Netscape Public License
9. The QPL
10. The Artistic License
11. The Apple Public Software License
12. The Sun Community Source License
13. The Freetype License

That is, out of all the open source licenses, thirteen of them have been found incompatible with the GPL. Even worse, the page implies that mearly linking GPL and MPL'd modules together violates a license, although I'm completely at a loss to see how. In the worst case, distributing or displaying the derived work would be the actual license violation.

To be perfectly honest, I've never considered any of the restrictions in the GPL beyond the BSD License to be neccesary. Certainly, BSD has managed to do better than GNU at developing a free computing system with much fewer licensing issues. BSD has proven that free software will remain free on its own, without complex licenses.

What the GNU project has done, is created a license which most resembles a virus. It starts in one or two portions of a system systemattically preventing you from reusing code, linking to certain libraries, etc. Before you know it, the path of least resistance is to put everything under the GPL. To continue to suggest that the GPL is a shining becon of light admist an ocean of flawed licenses is to ignore the fact that it's both flawed, and the cause of many of the current problems.

[reply] [top]

[»] gpl vs. everything else for the clue impaired
by raindog2 - Jun 19th 2000 11:14:34

Public domain software is the only "truly, completely free" software out there. You can do literally anything you like with it, even claim you wrote it if you're a buffoon.

The GPL, on the other hand, provides for "PERPETUALLY free" software, though the fact that the author(s) could change their minds in a later version is a minor weakness to me.

Everything else, whether "all changes must be sent back to the author", "you can release software without source if you pay us", "you can release software without source if you include this copyright line", etc, is neither "truly/completely free" as BSD/QPL/MPL folks like to claim, nor "perpetually free" as is GPLed software. Doesn't get too much simpler than this.

The problem, as we've seen, is in the linking, and that's where I throw my hands up. Apparently that's the case with Debian as well.

I use KDE, for what it's worth, just because alt-f2 and other keyboard shortcuts are wired into my brain and I have a terrible time figuring out where Gnome ends and the wm (E usually) begins. Still, it's starting to look like Gnome is going to be a more viable RAD platform than KDE anyway. Even Mandrake is writing all its applets in perl/gtk now. Time will tell.

[reply] [top]

[»] Debian's choice
by XyzzyOn - Jun 18th 2000 20:25:27

Joey Hess said:

"... Says XyzzyOn in a fit of idiocy."

Insult is always a sign of a strong argument....

"This is, of course, why Debian does not include X (BSD license), apache (BSD license), perl (artistic license), analog (custom non-GPL license), python (BSD license), openssh (custom license), sudo (BSD), tcl/tk (custom license), zsh (custom license), etc, etc."

As stated, their choice to do so. How many Debian servers are running apache or perl or a combination of both? I'd bet quite a few. Wouldn't that mean that the community of Debian users which, I belive, out number the amount of debian maintainers are speaking about their feelings on the licensing issue? Their concern is not the purity of the goal of the Debain project, but using the software they want to use and agreeing to licenses they want to agree to?

"This is of course, why Debian's definition of free software was adopted as the definition of Open Source. Open Source software, you see, may be only GPL'd."

If I understand correctly, your assertion is that "Open Source software ... may be only GPL'd" means that I can not construct code and call it open source without the blessing of the GPL?!?! Doesn't that, in itself, fly in the face of the freedom of software and developers? It is my right to create something and give it away without any strings attached, whether or not I use the text of the GPL or not.

[reply] [top]

[»] Freedom - Webster's definition or Debian's?
by XyzzyOn - Jun 18th 2000 20:16:58

Jayson Vantuyl wrote:

"As for 'our way or the highway'. Mmmmmm, yes. That is the point of free software, is it not?"

The point, yes. Is there only one way to that point, no. However, the argument would want you to believe that the only truly free software is that under the GPL. This is the arrogance I was sighting. If I write something and include the license as "yours, take it and do whatever, enjoy", but I haven't included the GPL as my way of saying it, does that make it any less free? No.

At the point that anyone in the community decides 'our way or the highway' all I can see is the same arrogance that makes Microsoft problematic, only they are flying the Debian flag, not the Windows flag.

And, as stated, if the Debian project doesn't want to include something because of a disagreement with licensing, fine, thier choice. But to insinuate that everyone else, including Troll Tech, is wrong and should conform to their way is not freedom, just a different form of oppression.

[reply] [top]

[»] kde + debian
by kp - Jun 18th 2000 17:32:04

Good for the debian folks. I'm always pleased when folks in the community stand on principle. I'm not a tech so the fine points of the code escape me but I suppose that doesn't have anything to do with understanding the principles involved. I don't use kde as it reminds me too much of windows. I did use it during my migration and just yesterday I recommended it to a friend who is about to migrate. What with corel using it as their default desktop and claiming to have rewritten it for their distribution, and now pressuring kde to make changes to suit corel, I think we should all feel a bolt of fear at the direction this is going. Not to say that the kde folks can't do what they want as long as they abide by the GPL... they can... that's what all this is about. But kudos to debian for saying that they have the right to not release it. Good stuff. All this is being hashed out in the light of day... rather than in some murky board room.

[reply] [top]

[»] Slightly OT: KDE is not good for Windows-Users (perhaps they don't know)
by salek - Jun 18th 2000 16:12:12

I know that this is OT right now, but it fits as add on to a previous posting: KDE isn't really good for Windows-User switching over to Linux, because it doesn't make those users looking around in the system.

I did tech-support for a german ISP once, and had a customer using Linux without knowing what it does. So he called to ask why he couldn't connect to the net, but was unfamiliar with any tools present in the system, he didn't even know what a terminal was.

Those users will use Linux as they use Windows, IMHO this is a problem when looking on the development of certain distros.
But it has impact on licensing issues, too, because those users don't care about them (as previously said). And so, it is possible that Linux changed into something commercial.

And compatibilities to the Windoze-world is more important then any licensing issues. Presenting users a new app, first question is "Is it Winword-compatible?", or "Is it Excel-compatible?".
People think they need compatible software, they prefer using an illegal copied software instead of having something released under the GPL doing the same job.

And this really sucks, that's why KDE and GNOME sucks, too.

Let's pay attention at Linux not becoming an unixified Windoze.

[reply] [top]

[»] Licences...
by Mats Loman - Jun 18th 2000 11:41:28

Well I thought we were dealing with FREE software here! I am sorry but this discussion only makes me sick!

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: The real and the false
by Colin Watson - Jun 18th 2000 11:24:15

John Califf wrote:

But they can't leave it at that. Some people who really do regard the Linux desktop to be up for grabs for commercial exploitation in the name of free software can't stand to see Kde, which is clearly non-commercial in the way that some others are not, succeeding.

Um, could well be, if you're paranoid; but that ain't Debian. If you're suggesting that Debian is somehow scared of KDE succeeding (and if you aren't, others have), then this is way off-base. If and when Debian can legally distribute KDE, it will. There are several hundred Debian developers, and only one of them needs to do anything for KDE to appear, when it's possible; this will be done. What of all these accusations of vendettas then?

I think most people who use the GPL are far more concerned about proprietary software than commercial software. After all, commercial software does no harm if we can still get the source code from it and use, modify, and distribute it as we wish. Proprietary software is the real exploitation.

If Debian, or the Free Software Foundation (GNU), really want Kde to use a different licensing scheme then they should present such a scheme to Kde, instead of publicly trying to humiliate Kde in this underhanded way.

Both have, many times. GPL + exemption, for one.

Perhaps it is the GLP that needs changing and that will be forced to change when it finally is tested in court.

KDE chose to use the GPL. Every single programmer who releases work under it chooses to do so. If they actually didn't want the restrictions in the GPL, then they should have used a different licence, or used their legal rights as the copyright holder to add exemptions to the copy of the GPL they use.

Oh, and if the GPL is taken down in court then KDE will most likely be open for more commercial exploitation, not less - which you said above that you didn't want!

One thing which is not possible is to have every single contributor to Kde sign a waiver allowing their GPL'd work to be a part of Kde. First, it is difficult to find all these people or to prove that every contributor has been properly contacted.

I think most people would be quite happy if all those whose names were mentioned in KDE source code and copyright files were contacted; laws on this subject tend to use the word "reasonable" a lot, and that would clearly be a reasonable effort. From what I gather, though, KDE won't even try. I hope this will change.

Secondly, Kde should not have to do what amounts to apologizing for its use of the GLP by adding exceptional clauses to it. For those of you who don't know, Kde developers have recently been assulted with such proposals in the Kde mailing lists.

Assaulted? Please. There is no apologizing in adding exemptions, and I'd think Debian would be among the last people to ask others to apologize for the GPL. If anything, you're apologizing for the QPL and its incompatibility with the GPL, but I think even that would be stretching the point and searching for insults where there aren't any.

There's just so much advice that's been given to KDE about how to solve it. But, like Joseph's said in the past, if they won't even admit that there's a problem then there's not a lot that can be done. There's no vendetta, and it certainly has nothing to do with KDE drawing in the Windows crowd or stealing GNOME's thunder or other such paranoia. All Debian developers stated their agreement with the Debian Free Software Guidelines - from which the Open Source Definition was derived - when they joined the project, and I'm glad that they're determined to stand up for those principles.

[reply] [top]

[»] Killing the Messenger?
by Charles Kerr - Jun 18th 2000 11:07:03

Ad hominem attacks on the Debian project don't make the KDE/Qt/GPL question go away.

The Debian people have raised a legitimate point about the compatability of these licenses. Could someone from the KDE camp please respond to this question?

[reply] [top]

[»] Has anyone read the license at all?
by pnambic - Jun 18th 2000 09:38:21

In my experience (from Slashdot and elsewhere, including this thread), 95% of the people who complain about the QPL have no idea how silly the actual problem with it is.

You see, the one point in the QPL that makes it incompatible with the GPL is the provisions that changes to the QPLed body of code must be distributed as patches to said body of code. Apart from that, the QPL is so close to the GPL in intent, if not in wording, that it might just as well BE the GPL.

You don't believe me, right? Well, go and read the licenses. To make it even easier to understand, here's a couple of scenarios:

You have obtained a GPLed or QPLed library (say, GDBM, or Qt).

Scenario 1: You want to write an open-source application using the library. No problem here. If you use the QPLed library, you can choose any license as long as it complies to the open-source definition, except for the GPL. If you use the GPLed library, you have to use the GPL. If you want to sell the result, WITH source code, go straight ahead.

Scenario 2: You want to modify the library and distribute it (port it, for example, or fix a bug). No problem here, either. In case of the GPLed library, your changes have to be under the GPL. In case of the QPLed library, your changes have to be under the QPL, and if you distribute them, you must do so in patch for. Not too difficult in these days of CVS. If you want to sell your work WITH source code, go straight ahead.

Scenario 3: You want to take code out of the library, and incorporate it into your own program/library/whatever. No problem here. If you take code from the GPLed library, the result must be GPLed. If you take code from the QPLed library, the result must be QPLed. If you want to sell the result WITH source code, go straight ahead.

Scenario 4: You want to do any of the above, and distribute the result, but you don't want to share the code with others. Well, you can't, in either case. You'll have to contact the library's author(s) and negotiate a licence exemption. Qt comes pre-negotiated, so to speak. You pay a one-time fee, and that's it.

As you can see, the two licenses are about as close as you can get. The intent of both is to make sure that everyone "plays nice", i.e. shares with others if you share with them. The problem is the patch clause, and this problem does not touch the intent of the license, but is rather a mere technicality. Not even RMS should be able to get truly all worked-up about this, right?

Now, given the above, what's the REAL problem? I can only speculate here, but it seems to me that even a GPLed Qt wouldn't satisfy the needs of those behind this constant bickering. What they REALLY seem to want is an LGPLed Qt, just like they have an LGPLed GTK. In other words, they want to bully Trolltech into giving their work away, even for closed-source development.

So much for the spirit of GNU, huh? Mark my words: the day that Eazel or Miguel's company come up with their particular version of "Sendmail Pro", you'll see the light. The threat hails not from Norway; the threat - if you see one - is the LGPL.

[reply] [top]

[»] re: why debian doesn't include kde
by ptk3p - Jun 18th 2000 09:25:38

I totally agree; I remember what vertical, propeitary markets were like (as a systems analyst in the '80's); that is, hardware lock-in <=> software lock-in. Moreover, my 7 yr old uses gnome/sawmill and things seem fine & more stable than kde. I use afterstep myself. I think more people need to at least listen to rms and debian and occasionally read the news - we're only a few steps away from yet another and more insidous form of lockout (and, of course price gouging) - hardware encryption; just look at dvd. With the general population's tech awareness going down, this level drop being at least partially encouraged by so called network devices, this type of thing will probably go largely unnoticed. There are also numerous legislative attempts by politicians at the state level to severely restrict the right of anyone, for whatever purpose, personal or otherwise, to reverse engineer/mimic/etc. propietary software/hardware. If as a community we don't stand strong against these quite legal (but, not just) manpulations, we stand to be part of a world of what used to be called dumb terminals that tie into a highly proprietary and controlled system. If you think this is alarmist, again, just consider dvd.

[reply] [top]

[»] KDE's contribution to the discussion
by jeff covey - Jun 18th 2000 09:21:01

I was wondering when KDE would join the discussion. I thought they'd at least post a reply, or want to run a rebuttal editorial. It appears they may not be capable of rational discussion; the best they can seem to do is make threats as a reply:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/06/17/2147218&cid=305

Sad.

--
vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er n trrx.

[reply] [top]

[»] More Linux, less X/GNOME/KDE
by Kuwanger - Jun 18th 2000 07:37:11

Dependency on other programs to run is a major hassle in Linux and is one very strong down point of Windows as well. Anyone who has used NS with 10 windows open just to have ONE application error close them all knows what I'm talking about. Changes to X require unloading the Window manager and all programs in X, then restarting X. X dying kills all programs IN X. The whole point of a stable system that never goes down is rather pointless when one base application crashing requires you to close down all currently running programs and restart. Is this not a major reason people shun away from X? Also a problem is KDE and GNOME specific programs that require massive (relatively) libraries to be installed. Also, as already pointed out, this creates the production of at least 2 of every program written, one for KDE and one for GNOME. X-chat in fact seems to require that GNOME is loaded even though the name would hint it's an X application. A single, consistent, and better organized API structure for graphical access needs to be devised that is not only stable but also crash tolerant, only restarting itself while leaving depent programs running (if not totally accessible). Healthy competition is good, so long as the major point of competition is held in sight, to develop better products that are more portable, robust, useful, and tolerant of problems.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Unclear about licensing issues
by J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) - Jun 18th 2000 05:21:53

supertzar wrote:

I wish Mr. Carter was a little more specific about what the problems are. I'm going to look through the QPL and GPL docs and see if I can figure it out. Can someone please clear this up ?

Perhaps the best place to start is Debian's stance on KDE copyright and licensing issues (note: this talks about the Qt1 license, but essentially nothing has changed with the QPL). I've tried to dispell some of the common misunderstandings in a letter to LWN which resulted in a thread to which Joseph Carter contributed some comments as well.

[reply] [top]

[»] Logical errors, oversights? Or is it me who's blind?
by David Bronaugh - Jun 18th 2000 04:53:48

Is it just me, or have most of these comments lost sight of the original body? Note that jeff offered TrollTech free advice on how to get their widget set, and the software associated with it, into Debian. Although Debian holds only a small market share, many influential (hopefully) people seem to run it. These people DO tend to be opinionated, and suggest that others run Debian. They also bash KDE, mostly because of licensing issues and because some people just see KDE as being butt-ugly (true on both counts :-). But I'll stop my ranting, and get back on topic.

Jeff offered TrollTech this service, and he's being blamed for saying that they didn't move on it? Who's the ungrateful one now? Also, why are people making KDE out to be a thing that can be hurt by this kind of debate? Honestly, a very small percentage of linux users read these articles... I believe that jeff is right to post this here for comment (or would it be more appropriately called informing?) Also I'm leaning towards jeff being right about the advantage of GPL (or LGPL) software. If Trolltech wants to have their own license, so be it. But what they're doing is basically saying that, if they have a bug, they're going to fix it, not someone else. That is unreasonable. Also, it's NOT in the spirit of Opensource. Argue all you want. What i've said is full of holes. eg. linux kernel.

Anyways, I'll end my late-night rant.

[reply] [top]

[»] DOC files and GPL programs
by Leon Brooks - Jun 18th 2000 03:34:38

Bon giorno, Alessio... this is a wake-up call from the land of Oz! (-:

Try editing a .doc file with GPL programs.

That works quite well from Pathetic Writer. As do XLS sheets in Gnumeric.

I think that the "war" between the two desktop managers is veri improductive

I agree that it's very unproductive to fight. However, I would also strongly support both the idea of parallel alternatives, and the idea that project leaders should be able to choose an independent course, even if it is not ideal for the Open Source community as a whole.

Being forced to conform to a general ideal, however benevolent or generally beneficial, is the exact antithesis of the Open Source spirit. Not all projects succeed, and that's fine. Not all projects fit my idea of what they should be doing, or how they should be doing it. So be it. I can send them my opinion, and that may be the end of it - or not. Not "my" project, not my choice.

I always have the option of forking the project and doing my own leading. For example, if KDE offended me and was important to me, I could relaunch Harmony one way or another, or maintain a set of patches to reconfigure KDE to use a non-Qt GUI foundation. And call it LDE - Leon's Desktop Environment, one better than KDE in theory. (-:

In reality, if/when Qt bothers me, well - "hi hi, hi ho, it's off to Gnome I go..." (-: those were dwarves, but this is not a troll :-)

[reply] [top]

[»] Take it or leave it!
by Eric Laffoon - Jun 18th 2000 02:24:43

I have to agree with the comments about these complaints being underhanded. Worse they leave a bad taste in my mouth. Here is what I take away from it... from Debian's perspective KDE is just wrong and Debian is here, descended from on high to mete out the wrath of a jihad. Supposedly these issues are resolved, but now they are not. Folks this is the Anti-Microsoft! This is the beast that insists everything is thier way and if it is not they have only FUD!

I would not have thought to see FUD from within the Linux community, but here it is. Where are the specifics? Where are the solutions? It is like a bunch of old women sitting around gossiping about what is not right with the way the neighbors conduct thier business... and that is exactly what it is!!! If Debian doesn't want KDE, fine! But it is Balmer-ish to try to ruin everybody else's fun. What business is it of thiers what license anyone else (who is not them) chooses to publish under?

Since there are no specifics I have nothing to defend... therefore I can spout off like the Debian people with no real sound legal arguments. So consider this... Surely there are a lot of companies out there with legal departments. Beyond Mandrake there are a lot of companies sponsoring KDE development. Do you honestly believe thier legal departments have all gone out to lunch. I know that's a poor argument, but it's better than the one Debian is putting up.

And as for people comparing Magellan to Gnumeric? I think that illustrates the idiocy of it all... Has someone found Magellan in the KDE CVS? What about Trademail on GTK? Specifically it is designed to replace outlook... they come right out and say it, and it is well ahead of Magellan. The official KDE tools are Kmail and Korganizer... bearing little resemblance to the products Trademail is so like... but then again I don't care!

I have developed software for KDE. I reviewed the licenses... although I did not have my attorney go over it. My partners had already posted on GPL and we reviewed licenses. We concluded that even going with LGPL was too dicey given we had used code from other projects and it had been GPL. Even replacing the code it was questionable if we could move to LGPL. We went GPL to avoid issues. Software licenses are a pain to deal with. Fortuantely we wrote a tool and can make money with it.

I think the choices are obvious. KDE is head and shoulders above everything I've used and it is looking great for KDE 2. I say we applaud them... but Debian says KDE must bow and all software must humble it's self before the one true distribution.

I have not tried Debian... I will not try Debian... I'm sick of hearing about Debian! I do not honor Debian... and I frankly cannot see how they can seriously expect to be respected in the community. The choices are simple Debian. Get over it and accept KDE or get over it and forget KDE. But most importantly honor freedom and diversity in computing and back off KDE! Stop telling KDE what they need to do to get you. In case you havent' noticed there's a lot more KDE than Debian out there and KDE doesn't make a dime off you so they don't have to kiss up. What wil happen is Debian will become even more, the tiniest little segment of the Linux world. That's fine by me. I personally wish no success to those who insist on being intactable and using FUD.

[reply] [top]

[»] The real and the false
by John Califf - Jun 18th 2000 00:01:01

The real question is the timing of this prominently featured editoral at Freshmeat, along with stories at Slashdot about licensing issues related to Debian and Kde which have appeared recently. The question is not the fine print of various licenses which is open to several interpretations.

It seems that these kinds of articles always appear when the Kde project has achieved some new milestone or achievement. As most of you know, Kde has recently released a second beta of its 2.0 desktop for unix. The final release is just three months away. And it's good, so good that it scares competitors. I'd go so far as to say it scares Microsoft.

Normally this would be a cause for rejoicing, but in commerce as well as in war unconventional tactics will be used when open conflict on the field of battle is unsuccessful. This is war, to some parties. The continual baiting and flaming are designed to do just one thing - cause people not to use Kde when they have every reason to do so.

Debian says it doesn't include Kde in its distribution. Fine. Those who use Debian and also want to use Kde as their desktop know where they can get Kde neatly packaged in Debian's native format. Downloads of debs for Kde are among the most poplular downloads and it looks like they will become even more popular as the final release of Kde 2.0 approaches.

But they can't leave it at that. Some people who really do regard the Linux desktop to be up for grabs for commercial exploitation in the name of free software can't stand to see Kde, which is clearly non-commercial in the way that some others are not, succeeding. Paradoxically, because of the restrictions of the Qt license as used in free software by Kde, Kde cannot serve as a launching pad for various commercial ventures as some other desktop and gui toolkits can. Kde projects and programs are free projects and programs - non-commercial. It may be that restrictions in the Qt licence may someday be lifted or invalidated in the courts, allowing Kde code to be used in commercial endeavours more easily, which is really what the detractors from Kde want after all.

This is indeed painful to Kde developers - to be held in contempt for offering something that is truly free and noncommercial, by those preaching in the name of freedom who want to use the GPL for commercial endeavours and are already doing so with the "other" toolkit and desktop system.

Nowhere did the featured editoral address exactly what the problem with licensing might be. No solution was offered. There were vague hints that Kde should change its license to "Artistic". Rather, by insinuation, implication and indirection, yet another effort has been made to make those who use Kde question their committment to free software in doing so.

If Debian, or the Free Software Foundation (GNU), really want Kde to use a different licensing scheme then they should present such a scheme to Kde, instead of publicly trying to humiliate Kde in this underhanded way. This is not an issue between Debian and Qt, but between Debian and Kde. If they really feel that strongly about the issue then Debian or GNU should sue distributions of Linux which include Kde. That would be the honorable thing. But there is much risk in doing that. Restrictive clauses in the GPL might not stand up to the test. Perhaps it is the GLP that needs changing and that will be forced to change when it finally is tested in court.

One thing which is not possible is to have every single contributor to Kde sign a waiver allowing their GPL'd work to be a part of Kde. First, it is difficult to find all these people or to prove that every contributor has been properly contacted. Secondly, Kde should not have to do what amounts to apologizing for its use of the GLP by adding exceptional clauses to it. For those of you who don't know, Kde developers have recently been assulted with such proposals in the Kde mailing lists.

All I will add to this long comment about the licensing itself is that the battle for free software will not be won on the basis of fine print.

Consider, for a moment, what a web site is. Essentially, it is a program - a piece of software. Mostly it is interpreted code which includes other pieces of interpreted code. Almost all web sites these days use a wide variety of tools (subroutines) with a wide variety of licensing. In using a mixture of these tools, and more importantly in linking to other sites, a web site links to the entire internet - the good and the bad. Without this linkage the web would serve no purpose - and a web site would not be a functional program. That is exactly like a desktop system that links to libraries - libraries using a variety of licensing schemes. Onerous restrictions of any kind on linkage will not stand, I feel. Libraries, like web sites, are to be linked to. This may apply to restrictions in the Qt license as well. Just because some commercial libraries impose restrictions in their licenses does not give GNU the right to do so, and I feel that no such restrictions will stand the test of time. Likewise, the battle against software patents will not be won or lost on the basis of fine print, but on the basis of broad principles of freedom and public access.

Detractors cannot take away from Kde what it has accomplished in this manner. But it seems that they will persist in the effort. Let them wear themselves out in a wasted effort. I know that the whole thing is painful to many who have contributed much to Kde as a labor of love, but that is the cost of love. They have certainly earned my respect in continuing to create something of great value in spite of the harrassment.

"Be like a football. The harder you are kicked, the higher you will soar" - Meher Baba

[reply] [top]

[»] and then I chose Lesser GPL...
by Guido Draheim - Jun 17th 2000 22:40:24

When I was about to release some of my private work to the public I was in the same situation as many other before: What License should I be using? Of course I had some goals that had to be met by the license and it is never an easy task to finally end up with a paper that is fit enough to stand a trial in a courtroom, esp. if you have neither experience in jurisdiction nor knowledge about the > 200 legal systems in the world. The only valid option is to chose from the exisiting licenses that have received enough lawyer assistance to protect a) me as person from liabilities and b) my code from abuse by profiteers.

Looking at the GPL, it turns out to be a license having received much propaganda and it has a wording to prevent closed source derivatives under all circumstances. The effect is that the GPL is very very strict in its ruleset, and it has the consequence that is doesn't mate well with any other license that is not GPL since most of the other licenses have some rules that contradict the strictness of GPL. In reality the GPL has become almost a religion in itself.

Being kind of a non-profit religion does not help in a world that needs some areas to make enough profit to get me paid, so the GNU idea has not been spreading very well to commercial companies, every of these is making up their own license instead of just taking over the existing one. To meet a certain set of criteria, the idea of OpenSource was better suited for the real world and in fact the GNU oldies seemed not to be all too happy about ESR' statements. To have a piece of software opensource is much easier than being GPL-compatible.

Yet, I do not actually care to be GPL as long as my own goals are going to be met. One only has to be GPL compatible in areas where you are forced by the majority - uh, I hate that majority rules idea in the first place anyway (ever tried to get some beer in an islam country? or drink a glas of beer in public in the US?)

Skipping the basic rules like liability and "please mention my name" I was looking esp. for these criterias:

1. opensource maintainance. I like to receive comments and patches and have them integrated, whereas I don't care if that is me or any other person out there in the community. This is a benefit that commercial do like have too, and they often put additional strings on patches and patched versions, see MPL and QPL. But there is no guarantee that those additional strings are still GPL-compatible, and in fact, they aren't.
2. spreading to the world. The software should be used by as many people out there as possible. The original ESR papers had been putting emphasis on this kind of reward for the author - it is fame. For a commercial company however it can be a foothold in a nice market share, TT has Qt as widespread through KDE - and if the KDE core developpers would attack the QPL it would be void within seconds. Luckily TT was so nice as to employ the KDE core staff...
3. feeding more opensource. I like to see other software opensource so I can use them in my own projects to come. Sadly, the licensing issues contradict in here since the weakening or strengthening of certain rules does often prohibit reuse of opensource code in other projects. Look at the issues with WINE and ODIN for an example. Some software authors have gone to release theirs under double- and triple-licenses just to enable the reuse in opensource projects while at the same time threaten closed-source profit-makers to not use it.

With the dawn of dynamic linking I have atleast the option of putting my sourcecode under strict licensing and have it used by closed-source software too, and if they need an additional feature they have the option to contribute back - it is nice to have someone paid to work on an opensource project (not just for support). And in fact these can be reused by any other too, even competitors that use the same opensource basis, and if time needs it, an opensource competitor can arise from the depths. The code I am throwing around is not necessarily a library that the Lesser GPL was originally written for, may be someone else makes it some kind of module - not just a system library.

The KDE' QPL vs. Debian' GPL issue has nothing to do with what an opensource programmer does actually care about. If the Troll's want additional restrictions on the form of patches, so be it. If the GPL thinks it makes the software a closed one, then the GPL is possibly broken, but IMHO just not up to date with how the world is moving these days. What is still lacking is a license that does protect and promote opensource developments in a generic and transitional fashion (invariant to the legalese of licenses).

This is a question that waits to be resolved. Any discussion is good, effort is inevitable, flamewars lead into nowhere. And if anyone needs parts of my LGPL code in an opensource project under a different license, well, the intention of the other project is what counts. But in the courtrooms only the written words count, and it does not help that I have expressed my intention to not sue anyone that does not try to build closed-source profitable software on top of my efforts. The legal risk is there - for anyone who dares to transfer code snippets into a project under a different license than mine. Anyone who found the magic ring?

[reply] [top]

[»] KDE?
by Mike Eheler - Jun 17th 2000 22:18:11

I've been using Linux for about 3-4 years now, and in that time I've used Debian, Redhat and mostly (as well as currently) Slackware distributions. Just from personal experience in the past, one of the first things I do is opt to not install KDE or un-install it if I don't have that choice. I'd much rather use a Gnome/Enlightenment or Gnome/Afterstep combo.

Anyways, IMHO KDE will fade away into nothingness if this doesn't get resolved soon since it's far from an "essential" linux WM, and the UI isn't great either.

Ahh well that's just the opinion of a lonely duck.

[reply] [top]

[»] Stay away from KDE ?
by warmi - Jun 17th 2000 21:20:54

And stick with Mac ?

[reply] [top]

[»] The GPL
by elleron - Jun 17th 2000 21:05:50

It's important not to lose sight of the fact that half of the problem is that the GPL itself is a very restrictive license. It's not immune to problems either. In fact, it was the inability to legally use bison for developing non-GPL projects that led to the LGPL.

Not to belittle the entire QPL Vs GPL fight, but the real problem is that both parties demand an excessive amount of control over their code. The FSF and other advocates of the GPL as the "one true license" actually do a great disservice to people who would prefer a less restrictive license.

In my opinion, today's world offers far less threat to "free" software than when the GPL was crafted. It's not clear that if every GPL'd package suddenly switched to the public domain Bad Corp would gobbel them up, add a couple features, and sucessfully sell them back to the public. (Which, believe it or not, was a possibility when mailing a file ment stuffing tapes in a box)

Looking into the future, I think the ideal solution is to relax the restrictions on most of the "free" licenses to mean what the word itself conjures up images of, "Here's some code, do with it what you will."

[reply] [top]

[»] becoming a borg
by macgorilla - Jun 17th 2000 20:31:46

As you might guess, I am a Mac user but I also use Linux on the x86 platform and the PowerPC Platform. In the argument about KDE, my first thought is this: If it works, why bother? The end user doesn't care about the license GPL, QPL, etc. Then I thought some more and realized that is exactly how M$ started. People used Windows, not caring about the license until they started having problems and found M$ had welded Windows shut. They don't want you to think, they'd rather think for you. Like a Borg collective. Open Source means freedom of choice. You can have KDE or GNOME but if you value the freedom that the Open Source community gives you, give something back. Stay away from KDE.

[reply] [top]

[»] I think we should hear Debian and the FSF out
by J. J. Ramsey - Jun 17th 2000 19:36:52

From what I understand, the problem as Debian and the FSF see it, is that the GPL requires that any libraries that a GPL'd program requires must 1) be system libraries or 2) have licenses that don't impose restrictions above what the GPL itself imposes. The QPL does impose requirements that the GPL does not. First, modifications to Qt software must be distributed in a form "separate from the Software, such as patches." Second, if software linked to Qt is not available to the general public, a copy of it must be supplied to Troll Tech if they request said software. Neither of these restrictions are particularly onerous, but they are restrictions the GPL itself does not impose, therefore the QPL is not GPL-compatible. This is, from what I can gather, Debian's and the FSF's understanding of the most recent KDE license conflict.

Do I agree with Debian and the FSF on this? I'm not sure. However, both Debian and the FSF are arguing on their own turf here. Debian, of all the distributions, works to make careful note of what is and is not free software, and why. If there is a license conflict, Debian is the distribution most likely to be in a position to discover it, because they go out of their way to check for such conflicts and take account of them. As for the FSF, they are the ones who drafted the GPL and hired lawyers to examine it and consult on it. They would tend to be familiar with the GPL'd in's, out's and quirks. If they say the GPL and QPL are incompatible, they are quite likely to be correct.

I can understand why KDE is reluctant to fix the possible problems with the QPL. Contacting everyone involved in the KDE project to get them to change the license to a modified GPL is a lot of work for something that *might* be a problem. Further, the people leading the KDE project are probably burned out by all the licensing flamewars they've had before. This may be a good time for KDE to bend like a reed, and fix the possible licensing problems *now*, rather than leave themselves in a position that could make them both legally and politically vulnerable later on.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Licensing issue leaves me confused.
by andres salomon - Jun 17th 2000 19:23:14

The difference is, GTK is under the LGPL, not the GPL. The LGPL (Lesser GPL) states that it's OK to link to the library, under whatever license you choose. This is how someone could make a non-free program that used GTK as it's widget set.

[reply] [top]

[»] QT and GPL
by dazk - Jun 17th 2000 17:41:39

Hi everybody,

I'm proudly one of the individuals that doesn't care. I do not want to start a distribution war but I dislike debian because I find it's spartanic and uncomfortable (my oppinion!!!). I accept other oppinions but I chose to have my choice. If DEBIAN is not including KDE, so what? In my oppinion that doesn't matter at all. I usually only install the very base of a distribution and build other components myself from source. I understand, that the problem is you cannot distribute precompiled KDE and QT without breaking one of the licenses. I'm not a laywer, but I believe using it is ok. People have a choice. If they want KDE included, they will choose a distribution which includes KDE. If they are picky on licences they will use DEBIAN. If they are not new to linux they'll choose their favorite distribution, no matter on what reasons. If they are new though, they probably won't choose DEBIAN anyways, because it is not easy to install. So where is the problem. If DEBIAN is not including KDE, that's ok. This makes DEBIAN even more spartanic and contributes to my oppinion. Many DEBIAN users don't seem to like KDE anyways because it's too featurerich and probably not spartanic enough (I don't want to offend anybody here, it's just what I learned from reading pro DEBIAN articles on many of the sites where discussions like that are held).

So where is the problem? I can't see it. And as I said before I don't care. I like KDE, don't like gnome because Icons use too much space on my screen. But that's my oppinion. Anybody can and has the right to choose for him/herself. That is in my oppinion the greatest thing about Linux. You have choices. Don't use what you don't like, but why complain if others like and use things you dislike? KDE got a strong foothold as a Windowmanager/Desktop because a lot of people just find it easy to use and are comfortable with it.

I think the reason for Linux not being even more popular are the wars about distributions, windowmanagers, licenses etc. People should just continue their great work on creating a superb OS with all the nice choices. I will continue on my efforts to learn QT and KDE programming to be able to contribute myself in the future because I feel it is the least thing I can do regarding all the good things I gained since I switched to Linux some 4 years ago.

So once again in short: Stop fighting. Let people use and choose what they want.

Greetings,

Richard

[reply] [top]

[»] "I understand they choose to only distribute with Debian that software that
by Joey Hess - Jun 17th 2000 16:52:15

... Says XyzzyOn in a fit of idiocy.

This is, of course, why Debian does not include X (BSD license), apache (BSD license), perl (artistic license), analog (custom non-GPL license), python (BSD license), openssh (custom license), sudo (BSD), tcl/tk (custom license), zsh (custom license), etc, etc.

This is of course, why Debian's definition of free software was adopted as the definition of Open Source. Open Source software, you see, may be only GPL'd.

Please, buy a clue.

[reply] [top]

[»] What exactly is a derived work?
by Rudiger Koch - Jun 17th 2000 16:19:34

The issue can only be about section 2 and 10 of the GPL. If you understand these sections in a way that a program based on libraries form a work that has to be under the GPL as a whole then no GPLed program can legally run on Windows, Solaris or any other proprietary OS. To me, KDE is derived from QT.

You write:
> In short, the GPL says that the whole program must be
> under its terms before you are allowed to distribute it.
> It makes a specific exception for things like proprietary
> libcs and the like, but the exception to that is that you
> can't distribute them both together, so we'd be
> stuck even if we considered Qt a system library.

If we really have to understand the GPL that way then fixing the QPL is impossible. QT would have to _be_ under the GPL in order to be distributable with KDE. But then: What about the Xlibs? They are not under the GPL either! Does that mean that all distros have to come without X?

There are surely more such conflicts. What about the Linux kernel? It's license says that using the API is considered normal use and does not constitute a derived work. Doesn't this mean then that any program may be distributed with the Linux kernel, except GPLed programs?

I believe that is not what the GPL intends and this is not what it says.

[reply] [top]

[»] it's about Qt being GPL compatible, not GPLed
by Adrian Bridgett - Jun 17th 2000 16:05:21

The problem is not that Qt isn't released under the GPL. It's that a piece of software, if released under the GPL, cannot use Qt. There is a clash between the Qt license and the GPL.
It is not legal for Debian to ship a piece of software released under the GPL which uses Qt _unless_ there is a "but it's okay to link against Qt" type clause in the program's license.

[reply] [top]

[»] bad foundation
by jetson123 - Jun 17th 2000 16:04:20

It should have been clear from the start that Troll Tech was using the open source version of their software as a marketing gimmick to break into an already crowded market or commercial cross-platform tools. In fact, without KDE, Qt would not have been very competitive, given that many of the other offerings provided much more complete tool chains.

Since this was Troll Tech's main product, they could not afford to make it completely free. And they have defended and maintained their position strongly, for example by shutting down Harmony and by claiming that even internal use of their software by commercial entities requires a commercial license.

By building on a toolkit that is entangled in the primary commercial interests of a small company, KDE is built on a bad foundation. For KDE to change the license to an artistic license would be a big mistake, I think; it would reward behavior by Troll Tech that I would consider not entirely honest. By now, I would guess that most of the value, bug fixes, and quality of Troll Tech's products is derived from the free work on KDE. On the other hand, Troll Tech will probably not change their license, and that's their right.

So, what could happen?

• Troll Tech gets bought by some big Linux company.
• KDE revives the Harmony project.
• KDE gets ported to some other toolkit.
• KDE slowly fades away.

There is also no need--there are a number of mature, C++-based toolkits available now. In fact, there even were a number of mature C++-based toolkits available when KDE started if the KDE developers had only looked carefully, but don't get me started about the lack of appreciation of prior art by some open source developers.

[reply] [top]

[»] Freedom is our goal, or isn't it?
by M. Sypkens Smit - Jun 17th 2000 15:36:55

I don't see a problem, do you?

I think it's okay for Debian and Debian users to have a ideal and stick to it (I'm not a Debian-zealot anyway), but what really puzzles me is all these reactions from the Debian-crowd like many of the ones above.

First of all many of the Debian fans here (including the author) are basically saying "KDE sucks": The Licensing "sucks", there are better alternatives like Gnome, the authors of KDE "suck", because they don't care and KDE only tries to imitate Windows. Why do these people even bother to discuss this issue? It't not like they want to use the software.

Secondly: what gives these people the right to dictate others (or at least they want to) what license to use? Isn't this whole issue about freedom? Doesn't that include freedom of choice in general? If I want to produce commercial Linux applications who's going to stop me? Is Debian (or its fans) going to try and convince me I shouldn't charge my customers for the applications I've created? Probably not because I have a lousy product and there're far better free alternatives. Why then push KDE to change their license? It's their choice. I have never once seen an attempt by the KDE-development team to try and convice Debian to change their philosophy, so who's having a problem here? If (the) Debian (user) doesn't want to include KDE, because of the license, then don't.

Further, why isn't GPL itself the problem? The BSD License wouldn't have a problem with the inclusion of KDE. GPL may be a "free" license, but in a way it's really more restrictive than the BSD License. You can't even include software that itself is completely free. KDE is by no means less GPL than any piece of GNU software. It's just the fact that they link to a non-GPL library that doesn't allow Debian to include it in their distro. KDE's (and Qt's) Licensing doesn't restrict or threaten the users freedom in anyway that the GPL doesn't try to protect software from.

In conclusion: I have the feeling that Debian and it's users are scared of KDE. Not actually of the software itself, but they're scared by the thought that KDE has gained a strong foothold on the Linux desktop and with the increasing popularirty of Linux, more and more people from the Mircosoft camp will join the Linux camp and KDE's position on the desktop will even strenghten more. They fear that Debian is eventually going to loose foothold in a distro market where the large part of the new-comers has a Microsoft background, at least as long as Debian doesn't include KDE.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: KDE, Qt, and Debian
by Jayson Vantuyl - Jun 17th 2000 15:00:19

...Various statements about TT choosing not to follow the GPL and McCarthy-esque relation of "Free or nothing" to "our way or the highway...

Quite honestly, the GPL is the license of choice for Debian and a good deal of open-source software. While it is not necessary for KDE to be released under the GPL (which Debian is not asking for), if it is GPL incompatible then it can never be bundled with GPL'd software. Hear that? Want to distribute your GPL'd Qt-based utility in any binary distribution? Can't do it--not without serious legal strings attached. Why? Because the QPL and GPL don't mesh--so, technically, you violate one license or the other. They are legally mutually exclusive due to some careful wording.

And, "intellectual arrogance"? It's about freedom, again. I want the freedom to write and distribute a GPL'd Qt-based app without violating the QPL. Much KDE software is, in fact, under the GPL. The only assurances anyone has is "we won't sue you" from Troll Tech. Nice. Considering the effective terms of the QPL, what does TT lose by making it GPL compatible? An arguement, that's it. The Debian developers may just be arrogant for expecting a corporation to be big enough to admit a mistake that hurts their users and programmers.

As for "our way or the highway". Mmmmmm, yes. That is the point of free software, is it not? Isn't there some sort of idea that, software is free so that one company/person cannot abuse or screw up a program? They don't give up the right to relicense new versions or give away ownership. All that they do is give the world the ability to, without legal encumbrances, write GPL'd code on top of Qt. I mean, it's not like the Debian project is getting some sort of exclusive license that allows them complete control of Qt. It's not like Debian has a history of completely forking the development branches. Heck, our autobuilder takes the UPSTREAM SOURCE TARBALL, a few patches, and builds it. All they want is to be able to have GPL compatability so that it can be distributed.

...Statement that it is TT's right to not use the GPL and statement that licensing discussion equals harrassment...

Discussions like this occurs all the time. In the world of software, assurances from PR that you won't get sued just don't cut it. While TT has the right to distribute under something other than the GPL, they have publicly stated that they WANT to be GPL compatible. Need I rant about corporations whose policy and PR differ?

Licensing discussion is especially important for Qt. If the QPL is truly incompatible with the GPL, the thing can't even be distributed with the Linux kernel. Hear that? The kernel, which is GPL'd, is linked to by Qt (courts have show that linkage, even through syscalls, counts). So, again, are licensing discussions that bad when they prevent a open library from being distributed on it's own open, native platform!

...Statement that TT and KDE are happy with the QPL and statement that not all software needs to be GPL so Debian shouldn't pressure...

TT and KDE are far from unanimously happy about the QPL. See some of the contributor submissions on /. about that.

The Debian people don't want it to be GPL'd. They just want it to be GPL compatible. Again, it can't be distributed in compliance with both licenses with even the Linux kernel. At any rate, they are pressuring a company to make good on promises. That is certainly not too much to ask.

...FUD about the goal of the Debian project...

Reality check. It has been shown that Debian does not need KDE. Some of it's developers would like to have the freedom to code with Qt. TT said that they would help. They keep saying they'll offer a license that will work. They never have, yet. The Debian developers are doing fine without them, but are bitter about promises not kept. End of discussion. Gosh, they're real jerks. ;P

Oh, and the jewel: ...try to remove the freedom of choice from others who choose to support Linux by developing for it?...

Since when does supporting Linux grant any special consideration? Are we to give exception to the GPL whenever a corporation decides to throw code at us? If, as a community, it is not unreasonable to ask for GPL'd code from SGI, IBM, and Corel, I don't see why it's that unreasonable to ask for it from TrollTech.

We want GPL compatible code so that it is legal to distribute GPL and QPL code together. TT has expressed the same desire. They're dragging their feet. One of the participants got bitter. So, why is this an affront to decency and an assault on freedom, again?

[reply] [top]

[»] Unclear about licensing issues
by supertzar - Jun 17th 2000 14:13:09

I've used KDE, GNOME, Enlightenment and found that as a newcomer (about 2 years ago) KDE was the most stable so I've stuck with it since then. I agree about the KDE apps being very MS-Like but some people like this (I don't care - I use Applix for spreadsheets and Netscape and Pine for mail 8=)) and it makes the transition for them easier. Not all of us have been here since the beginning ! Windowmaker I've never tried . . .

About Qt and KDE: I program in Qt quite a bit as a hobbyist - I'd like more information about the licensing issues. I wish Mr. Carter was a little more specific about what the problems are. I'm going to look through the QPL and GPL docs and see if I can figure it out. Can someone please clear this up ? Damn it Jim, I'm an engineer not a lawyer!

[reply] [top]

[»] KDE, Qt, and Debian
by XyzzyOn - Jun 17th 2000 13:55:34

It would seem that failing after spending three years getting the license to read the way the Debian developers think it should read was predictable three years ago. If the KDE members or Troll Tech choose not to follow the GPL, that's their decision and the need of the Debian developers to change it so it meets their criteria is the height of intellectual arrogance. Of course, that's been the course of Debian for a long time under the guise of "Free or nothing" when in reality it's "our way or the highway".

If someone develops something and chooses not to put it under the GPL that is their choice to do so and shouldn't be harrassed by someone, especially for three years, because they disagree with the creators use of their intellectual property.

Hopefully, the Debian guys will realize this. I understand they choose to only distribute with Debian that software that is GPL'd. Wonderful! That's their goal and should remain such. But, in understanding the freedom the GPL gives to the community, it should also be a reminder that not all software needs to be distributed in this fashion. That is, after all, the essence of freedom itself. The right to choose. KDE and Troll Tech have made their choice and are apparently happy with it. As have the other distribution maintainers.

Perhaps it is time to rethink the goal of the Debian project. Is it for a Linux distribution that is completely under the GPL, as they say, or is it to police the world of Linux software and try to remove the freedom of choice from others who choose to support Linux by developing for it?

[reply] [top]

[»] Please be more specific
by Michael Pruett - Jun 17th 2000 13:43:49

I'm not really sure what the point of this story was other than to tell us that Joseph Carter was involved in negotiations with Troll Tech and that some disagreement ensued. I would like to hear about the specific license provisions Joseph proposed and the specific disagreements which occurred. In no way does this letter attempt to shed light on the problem or on the history of the problem. The views and concerns which Troll Tech presumably shared with Joseph are not even mentioned in passing. All we are told is that Joseph's changes were backed out at the last hour. Did Troll Tech provide reasons for this change? Were Joseph's proposals considered unreasonable?

All this talk of Joseph's being at fault for problems in the QPL serves no purpose in furthering our understanding of the dynamics and politics involved. And one purpose this article should serve (but which it does not) is to enlighten the community and to help the community to reach a solution. I personally don't care about the author's personal feelings or regrets about his participation in this negotiation. Such outpouring is certainly not warranted or motivated by the rest of the story, nor does it aid in any way the community's understanding of the problem. And other than the author's personal feelings about the matter, what in this story hasn't been covered in other fora before? I was hoping to gain some insight into the matter and must say I was let down.

[reply] [top]

[»] Why Debian Doesn't Include KDE
by dTd - Jun 17th 2000 13:33:57

IMHO I really don't care if they ever get the KDE lisence straightened out, I don't use it. I do however use Mandrake as it seems to be the best cofigured distro out of the box. I am upset that most distros include it though. I really believe that some of the best developers are wasting time writing apps for kde and gnome which could be implemented in by other means than gnome or kde. Sorry, but for me having the ability to "quickly" change between multiple desktops with a simple alt+1 or 2 is too important to give up and that is why windowmaker will always be my preferred desktop. I really don't need nor want icons of any kind, menus are sufficient, quicker, slimmer, less intrusive and easier to use. I have thus removed all aspects of kde and gnome from all my installations of linux. It's sad to hear that some very enthusiastic linux programmers are becoming disheartened and apathetic becuase of petty egotistical ideals.

Like the man said "they both suck"
dTd
"linux-Tastes Great, Less Filling" (without kde & gnome :) )

--
/dTd

[reply] [top]

[»] Excellent!
by rbf - Jun 17th 2000 13:32:38

Well written! It's about time there was something that touched a little more on KDE's license.

It's too bad it has to be this way, but since it is.. I back Debian 100% with their choice!

[reply] [top]

[»] KDE and licensing and etc.
by Rando Christensen - Jun 17th 2000 13:14:15

I agree with the licensing issues. The sad part is, most of the world DOESN'T. How many people do you know that install windows, and when they see the EULA, click 'ok' Without even knowing what it's restricting them from doing? Most. However, that's Why i love and use debian. I use it religiously. But that's also my taste. I find that in most cases, when i install a package in debian, the default settings for that program are very comfortable for me.

But i never Really liked kde Anyway. Whenever i look at kde, i get the feeling that i'm looking At msWindows. That, i think, is something that KDE was shooting for, but i've always found their interface clumsy. I *ESPECIALLY* dislike the KDE version of the 'display properties' Dialog box.

People have argued to me that this helps pull people away from windows, but i've never thought that that was the issue with linux. I always thought it was "Hey, This is a good Operating System! Use it!" Of course, when win95 even came out, i was disgusted. I liked win3.1 good enough, because I had the option of STAYING in commandline and simply CALLING the GUI. i liked it better that way in dos, And i like it better that way in linux. Oh well. It's just Rant. ;)

[reply] [top]

[»] heh
by bouis - Jun 17th 2000 12:10:32

"They both suck if you ask me"

^^ very well put. why don't more people see this?

[reply] [top]

[»] "gay"?
by jeff covey - Jun 17th 2000 11:35:45

[Ok, this is supremely off-topic, but, IMHO, necessary. Please do not drag this out into a separate discussion that overwhelms the actual subject of the editorial. Thanks. :)]

timecop writes:

Well, it's simple. KDE is just gay. Yes, this is a troll. But you all need to realise, that KDE is gay. Debian knows it, the licensing stuff is just an excuse so they don't have to reply to all emails asking why isnt KDE included with a one-liner: "Because it's gay".

timecop: I'd like to suggest that you find a new way to express that you don't like something, unless you actually are so bigoted that you think it's a good expression (like, say, "nigger-rigged"). You would probably not like it if I referred to everything I thought was bad as "Oriental".

Thanks,
Jeff

--
vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er n trrx.

[reply] [top]

[»] Debian does no include KDE because...
by timecop - Jun 17th 2000 10:36:33

Well, it's simple. KDE is just gay. Yes, this is a troll.
But you all need to realise, that KDE is gay. Debian knows it, the licensing stuff is just an excuse so they don't have to reply to all emails asking why isnt KDE included with a one-liner: "Because it's gay".

[reply] [top]

[»] Choices
by Leon Brooks - Jun 17th 2000 10:33:14

I originally chose to use KDE because is was simpler, cleaner and more reliable than Gnome at the time. There were also fewer annoyances like having to click on a shell to give it focus after having just opened it. I suspect that many others have made the same decision for similar reasons. I use KDE today.

Now, the choice isn't so clear. On one side, Gnome seems to be improving faster than KDE, and the Enlightenment that it's based on improves as well. As mentioned above, KDE's licencing situation hasn't sorted itself out. Reading between the lines, TrollTech has some schitzoprenia - some important people within TT want to use a clean GPL-compatible licence and others aren't comfortable until they've messed with it (but not enough to get it crossed out of most major distros).

One the other hand, KDE is the default window manager in Mandrake, my preferred distribution, and I'm used to it. If I did change distributions, it would be to Debian.

However, one disturbing trend which may soon make the difference for me is that many of the KDE-specific utilities, particularly the newer ones, seem to have a very Windows aspect to them in that they are designed for a single purpose, and that purpose only, and have no hooks (or even "mounting points" for hooks), no consideration in their design and implementation at all for them being extensible in a general way, none of the Unix "everything is a tool" persona. Gnome tools are not immune to this, simply less often susceptible.

Two significant projects illustrate this point reasonably well. Gnumeric is designed to allow people to work with Excel spreadsheets other than on Windows or MacOS platforms, and to this end has many compatibility features to make transition or interoperation easy for Excel users. However, it also has the classic symptoms of a GNU project: it has totally generalisable scripting, and consequently can be used to read and write mail. Quite a number of people contribute to its development, which has been quite open. While allowing interoperation with Excel, it does not try to be Excel.

In contrast, consider the swiss army mail client being spawned by the Magellan project. This mail client is clearly intended to replace Outlook. It looks and feels somewhat like Outlook. The development is being tightly controlled (you can compile and run snapshots of it - sort of - sometimes - due only to popular demand, says the website). It's quite clearly single-purpose, quite clearly wants to be Outlook. But it's not that much more extensible than kmail.

The whole persona is different. It feels so much more... "Microsoft" than gnumeric; so much more "we know what you want" rather than "here is a working, useable tool: make what you want of it, here's how". It has a closed-source attitude, even though the actual source is open. And that way lies madness.

If you build a mud-brick house, you learn to bind the mud-bricks together with a mortar that is essentially the same as the bricks. If you were to mortar mud-bricks with concrete, for example, you wind up with many lumps of dirt on concrete shelves, rather than a cohesive, solid building. If you include a concrete block in the mud wall, the wall will crack because the mud settles, expands and contracts differently to the concrete.

Now relate mud to open software, concrete to closed. Mud-brick houses are healthier, hold their temperature better, are easier to build, easier to remodel, (can be) cheaper, can be self-built, party/team-built or contracted, use less resources, survive earthquakes and other foundation-altering events better, and so on. But put too many chunks of concrete in them and you have a problem.

If you're in charge of an Open program, and reading this, please always make decisions with an eye towards freedom, an eye towards open-ness, rather than simply making an Open clone of a Closed program. Make your progam a tool not just an appliance, make it portable, make it fit in with the rest of the Open world.

And TrollTech, why not use GPL, BSD or Artistic licencing anyway? If your original fears were groundless, what have you to lose now by changing now?

[reply] [top]

[»] How 'bout a GPL compatible QT?
by Buddy Smith - Jun 17th 2000 10:28:19

Would it be possible to make a qt-compatible widget set under the GPL?

[reply] [top]

[»] Kudos
by darke de Loup - Jun 17th 2000 10:06:40

Kudos Knghtbrd. Its about time someone wrote an elegant and clear explaination of the whole situtation.

Half the reason I wanted to become involved with Debian is the stance on licences and clearer willingness to be part of free software, rather than just 'linux' as a commercial entity.

If 'we' don't fight for whats right, and turn a blind eye to licensing breaches, GNU/Linux will stop to exist and will fade into yet another obscure commercial product.

[reply] [top]

[»] Right On Debian
by Simon Conrad-Armes - Jun 17th 2000 09:32:41

I choose GNOME over KDE based purely on license issues (well, and the fact that GNOME has nicer icons) and I think admirably of Debian for excluding KDE from their distribution.

IMO, license awareness is an overlooked issue in modern software. People are to used to skipping over license agreements for shareware that they don't care anymore. People! These are your rights at stake here. Free Software for the people. Free Beer is not always without complications.

[reply] [top]