[HN Gopher] The KDE Free Qt Foundation: 25 Years of Celebration ___________________________________________________________________ The KDE Free Qt Foundation: 25 Years of Celebration Author : LorenDB Score : 117 points Date : 2023-06-29 18:52 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.qt.io) (TXT) w3m dump (www.qt.io) | MaxBarraclough wrote: | > Qt is developed as a true open source project. | | Apart from when they deliberately withhold features from the Open | Source releases. | | https://www.qt.io/blog/the-new-qt-quick-compiler-is-coming-i... | synergy20 wrote: | if Qt is a true open source project, it will be way more widely | used these days, its commercial model hurts itself badly. | | make it fully truly open source, charge premium for those who | need your professional service to make profits, then it will | fly to the sky. | freedomben wrote: | I think you have a different definition of "open source" than | I do at least. LGPL is (IMHO) a true open source license. | | I agree though that some licensing changes would really help | them grow. I think they've hurt long term adoption in | exchange for short term revenue. I don't blame them, baby | needs new shoes after all, but as a huge fan of Qt I would | love to see them become a standard. The product is good | enough that they deserve it, but the license can be a bit | scary for people who aren't already familiar with it. | jenadine wrote: | > charge premium for those who need your professional service | to make profits | | How exactly does that work? Why would the company invest a | lot in the library if they can just offer professional | services without it? For example, KDAB already offer | professional services around Qt and do not need to spend much | in R&D. | pjmlp wrote: | The "success" of others prove otherwise. | asdlfkjasdlfjkh wrote: | [flagged] | tylerag wrote: | I dunno, that isn't terrible. | | The terrible part is where if you pay for a commercial license | to use it in a proprietary application, you can't stand within | 50 feet of the LGPL version. | | https://www.qt.io/terms-conditions/: | | "Prohibited Combination" shall mean any effort to use, combine, | incorporate, link or integrate Licensed Software with any | software created with or incorporating Open Source Qt, or use | Licensed Software for creation of any such software. | | So you can't use KDE to write a program that links against the | proprietary QT libraries. | lmm wrote: | > So you can't use KDE to write a program that links against | the proprietary QT libraries. | | The way I read it that's fine, it's the other way around | that's forbidden - you're not allowed to use the commercial- | licensed version to work on KDE. | fluoridation wrote: | I think what it's saying is that you can't use licensed Qt to | create software that uses both it and OSS Qt, not that you | can't use software that uses OSS Qt to create software that | uses licensed Qt. | jonhohle wrote: | Is it ABI compatible? You could run KDE with the proprietary | libraries. | jenadine wrote: | That would be violating the proprietary licence terms | ktm5j wrote: | Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but could | you explain why that is? | tylerag wrote: | KDE was created with open source Qt. As in, the | developers that wrote KDE used the LGPL version of Qt. | | To repeat myself, "Prohibited Combination" shall mean any | effort to use, combine, incorporate, link or integrate | Licensed Software with any software created with or | incorporating Open Source Qt. | tguvot wrote: | sometimes i miss days of kde/gnome and qt/gtk discussions on | slashdot. good times. | akiselev wrote: | The good ol' days when the internet was the battleground for | harmless religious wars to decide spaces vs tabs, vim vs emacs, | braces vs indentation, static vs dynamic typing, OOP vs FP, | Windows vs Mac! | | Now it's all donkeys and elephants, trolls and partisans. | asdlfkjasdlfjkh wrote: | the harmless discussions were boring filler for the | interesting ones. but we lost them all. | | The discussion GPL vs the corps. The corps wanted to use | linux for free and make money. they won when linus gave up | and added "tainted" message. now everyone just skin the | reference implementation and ship a vulnerable modem or iot | and we like that. | | Google and samsung ships billions of android devices *with no | source code for most of the system* and we think that is fine | and that android is open source and that linux is healthy | when all it does is host a bunch of binary blobs for every | piece of the hardware. | | then we had discussions on hosted GPL vs the corps. Where the | corps won again when we all gave up and came up with the agpl | compromise. aws business model is "bigger Cpanel, with more | OSS software we get for free". They sold RH business model to | everyone who thought RHEL was too expensive, by charging even | more. genius. | tguvot wrote: | i see an oldtimer here :) | | yea.. well.. gpl/etc fight was lost. On the upside, we can | take a look at wider benefit to society at whole. Through | usage of gpl software, even in non-compliant way, were | created a whole lot of companies (and jobs) and products | that are widely used. Without it we might have had 1% of | current selection and it would have been based on vxworks | and totally locked down. | | you win some, you loose some | tguvot wrote: | back then internet was exciting. back then there was internet | NayamAmarshe wrote: | I will always love KDE! When I first used it, I said to myself, | "How is this free!?" | | I was surprised to see how a free software organization made a | much better software than a trillion dollar corpo. | | I just wish they had enough resources. KDE is the hope for the | future of free software. I hope Valve can help them become | mainstream. Just waiting for the day a big corpo will appear and | make Linux compete with macOS and Apple's hardware directly. | inetknght wrote: | > _I was surprised to see how a free software organization made | a much better software than a trillion dollar corpo._ | | The surprise wears off as you start using more and more open | source software that's either on-par with or significantly | better than paid software. | gumballindie wrote: | Thats what happens when you allow engineers to do engineering | stuff. I just wish there was a way to turn projects such as | kde into commercial success stories, without compromising | open source, privacy and tech. If financed properly kde and | similar projects can survive long term. | msie wrote: | It's not free if you want to sell a product made with it. | freedomben wrote: | Incorrect. The open source license is LGPL. If you | dynamically link you can even keep your app code proprietary. | If you want to statically link Qt then your code must be | LGPL, but that also doesn't prevent you from selling the | product. | msie wrote: | Yeah, I am mistaken but you do have to give away source to | your product because of the viral nature of the LPGL. So | it's not completely free to do what you want. And I've | always been suspicious of the dynamic linking loophole. | fluoridation wrote: | The so-called dynamic linking loophole applies to the | GPL, not the LGPL. An LGPL library can be linked and | distributed with a closed source program if the end user | is able to replace the library with a build of their own. | | The loophole you're referring to involves creating a | generic plugin interface that allows the program to use | any library as long as it meets the requirements of the | plugin system. If the program can function even when no | plugins are present, the program cannot be said to be | derivative of any plugin; it's the plugins that depend on | the program, not vice versa. Therefore, you could for | example develop an open source plugin that extends the | functionality of your program and depends on GPL'd | components and distribute that plugin binary and its | source code with your closed source application. | michaelsbradley wrote: | Incorrect. | [deleted] | michaelsbradley wrote: | You don't have to make your code LGPL even if you | statically link, though that is a common misunderstanding | (sometimes a promoted misunderstanding). | | https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl- | faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynami... If you | statically link against an LGPLed library, you must also | provide your application in an object (not necessarily | source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to | modify the library and relink the application. | msie wrote: | Cool | mattl wrote: | KDE? Sure it is. | fluoridation wrote: | So if I give away milk to convince people to buy my cheese, | that means the milk isn't free? | msie wrote: | Free as in keeping the source to your product closed- | source. Otherwise you have to buy a license if you want to | keep it close-source while statically linking it. | michaelsbradley wrote: | Incorrect. | cosmojg wrote: | This is just plainly false. | mikae1 wrote: | KDE Plasma made getting back to desktop Linux after 15 years of | macOS an easy task. Despite GNOME often being described as closer | to macOS and Plasma closer to Windows I've found that no DE comes | close to the configurability and polish that Plasma has. | Congratulations! | asdlfkjasdlfjkh wrote: | gnome is not closer to macOS. sadly gnome is coopted into | making bad decisions under the guise of copying macOS. | | As soon as the "designers" got more funding than the coding | contributors, the whole gnome org went down the drain. They | often trhow away complete systems and replace them with | something that are unusable "to drive coding contributors". | They are completely disconnected from the community. Ubuntu | tries to work around all that (by making their own shell, | settings apps, etc) so it is not too obvious, but if you use | debian, you probably spend several months without basic desktop | funcionality every time they pushed something. Gnome is the | inspiration for the systemD politics. | | So, no gnome is not closer to macOS. but gnome is broken by | using copying macOS as an excuse by the designer teams. | hamandcheese wrote: | > Gnome is the inspiration for the systemD politics. | | Could you clarify what you mean by this? | simion314 wrote: | Not parent , GNOME is not a community project, there seems | to be one or a few big ego persons that do not even use | GNOME and that push a "vision". | | Like they wanted CSD and they decreed that everyone, even | non-GNOME apps like old games that nobody works on should | implement CSD because they are not going to be backwards | compatible. | | Same with notifications, old apps, third party apps should | implement the GNOME way, they do not care for supporting | non-GNOME stuff. | | But more power for them, they self select a niche user, a | "GNOME user" that either is compatible with the GNOME way | or they will contort themselves into it. | lmm wrote: | Gnome introduced a hard-dependency on systemd (and later | denied it / claimed it had been an accident) in what looked | very much like a deliberate move to force distros to ship | systemd. | _benj wrote: | Same experience here. I was getting fed up with every new gnome | release taking away more features and at the same time was | missing the niceties of macOS. Decided to give plasma a try and | it quickly turn into my daily driver. No need for gnome tweaks, | or even confit files, right-click whatever I want to change and | there's a setting to change it! | edbaskerville wrote: | And here! I switched from Mac to a Framework with | Ubuntu/GNOME six months ago. Switched to Fedora/KDE Plasma | this week and it's been so much better--everything is so much | more discoverable. | | That said, Dolphin just got a bug where it crashes during | thumbnail generation, and I'm seeing artifacts in Wayland | with fractional scaling, but the KDE bug system is very | visible and easy to navigate, so that I'm pretty confident | these will be fixed soon. (I did know what I was getting into | when I left Apple for the Wild West.) | pjmlp wrote: | GNOME is closer only in look, it isn't in feel, and certainly | isn't in development experience. | p4bl0 wrote: | See also the post on KDE's website: | https://dot.kde.org/2023/06/21/celebrating-25-years-kde-free... | | I submitted it to HN but it didn't get any traction at the time: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36430030 / | gjvc wrote: | I remember being so impressed using KDE Konqueror for the first | time where the filer and browser were seamlessly integrated in | one style of window -- this was a big deal and not imitated | enough. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-06-29 23:01 UTC)