I'm no authority, but IMHO
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >There's no license reason today why there are two big
> desktop projects
> >(GNOME and KDE).
>
> There is. If you want to develop a commercial application under
> KDE you need to pay TrollTech for the Qt license. Basically
> TrollTech controls all commercial KDE applications.
No, you don't, IFF you distribute the source code. Doesn't make
a lot of sense though. So consider, a for-profit company licenses
QT for a proprietary app. They send bug fixes/enhancements to QT
to TrollTech. If these migrate to Free QT, you're ahead of the game.
If they don't, what did you lose?
> Which makes no sense. You're not at the mercy of Linus or the
> kernel developers, neither at that of the KDE developers, but
> TrollTech controls the KDE desktop wrt commercial apps.
No, they don't. KDE uses the GPL for QT. If I build a commercial
app using KDE, it is GPL. If I build a commercial app not using
KDE, but using commercial QT, that has no effect on the KDE desktop.
> What if TrollTech decides to only license (or sell) Qt
> to, say, Microsoft? What does that mean for, say, the Kompany ?
They can't. They released the code under GPL. They can stop maintaining
that code, and continue on a proprietary track. If they did, what
did you lose?
In summary, QT -> GPL, GNOME - GPL, what about _that_ makes one or
the other inherently preferable or better?
P.S. for once I am in complete agreement with larry m. ;-)
On Thursday 19 June 2003 12:37, Downing, Thomas wrote:
> I'm no authority, but IMHO
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >
> > Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
> > Which makes no sense. You're not at the mercy of Linus or the
> > kernel developers, neither at that of the KDE developers, but
> > TrollTech controls the KDE desktop wrt commercial apps.
>
> No, they don't. KDE uses the GPL for QT. If I build a commercial
> app using KDE, it is GPL. If I build a commercial app not using
> KDE, but using commercial QT, that has no effect on the KDE desktop.
Lets see...
SCO releases Linux code under GPL...
IBM releases code based on Linux...
SCO now changes mind...
And the lawyers gather...
Personally, I don't see a difference...
Hi Jesse
Am Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2003 20:58 schrieb Jesse Pollard:
> On Thursday 19 June 2003 12:37, Downing, Thomas wrote:
> > I'm no authority, but IMHO
> >
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > >
> > > Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Which makes no sense. You're not at the mercy of Linus or the
> > > kernel developers, neither at that of the KDE developers, but
> > > TrollTech controls the KDE desktop wrt commercial apps.
> >
> > No, they don't. KDE uses the GPL for QT. If I build a commercial
> > app using KDE, it is GPL. If I build a commercial app not using
> > KDE, but using commercial QT, that has no effect on the KDE desktop.
>
> Lets see...
>
> SCO releases Linux code under GPL...
Did they ?!? No they didn't
They are talking about old Unix-Licenses, not about Linux. And SCO also has
not licensed Unix to IBM themselves.
CU
Thorsten
On Thursday 19 June 2003 14:08, Thorsten K?rner wrote:
> Hi Jesse
>
> Am Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2003 20:58 schrieb Jesse Pollard:
> > On Thursday 19 June 2003 12:37, Downing, Thomas wrote:
> > > I'm no authority, but IMHO
> > >
> > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > >
> > > > Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > Which makes no sense. You're not at the mercy of Linus or the
> > > > kernel developers, neither at that of the KDE developers, but
> > > > TrollTech controls the KDE desktop wrt commercial apps.
> > >
> > > No, they don't. KDE uses the GPL for QT. If I build a commercial
> > > app using KDE, it is GPL. If I build a commercial app not using
> > > KDE, but using commercial QT, that has no effect on the KDE desktop.
> >
> > Lets see...
> >
> > SCO releases Linux code under GPL...
>
> Did they ?!? No they didn't
> They are talking about old Unix-Licenses, not about Linux. And SCO also has
> not licensed Unix to IBM themselves.
It was my understanding that you could download SCO Linux up until about a
month after they started the lawsuit. By that time, all/most of the contested
code had to already be in the kernel. Since SCO was supplying it, it was
released (my opinion).
IMHO IBM AIX doesn't owe anything to SCO. Sure in the early days, IBM did
consider using System V... but it had so many problems being ported that they
completely dropped it, and continued with AIX development instead.
I've used both.. and believe me, AIX doesn't work ANYTHING like System V. no
virtualization (disks), no partitioning (systems), no distributed operations,
minimal networking, no Power support... (this was a 202e prototype at the
time I believe...
All of that belonged to AIX. which even had SMP beginnings (some platforms).
Even shared memory was not exactly working well on System V (semaphores were
very slow).
Thorsten K?rner on Thu 19/06 21:08 +0200:
> > SCO releases Linux code under GPL...
>
> Did they ?!? No they didn't
I recall a fellow named Tigran Aivazian submitting lots of
kernel patches from an @sco.com address, for one. And then
there's Caldera OpenLinux, of course. I don't think it's
relevant though...they can submit as much GPLed code as they
want and still claim a violation of a contract pertaining to
some other non-GPLed code that was copied into Linux.
Am Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2003 21:30 schrieb Jesse Pollard:
> On Thursday 19 June 2003 14:08, Thorsten K?rner wrote:
> > Hi Jesse
> >
> > Am Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2003 20:58 schrieb Jesse Pollard:
> > > On Thursday 19 June 2003 12:37, Downing, Thomas wrote:
> > > > I'm no authority, but IMHO
> > > >
> > > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > >
> > > > > Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > Which makes no sense. You're not at the mercy of Linus or the
> > > > > kernel developers, neither at that of the KDE developers, but
> > > > > TrollTech controls the KDE desktop wrt commercial apps.
> > > >
> > > > No, they don't. KDE uses the GPL for QT. If I build a commercial
> > > > app using KDE, it is GPL. If I build a commercial app not using
> > > > KDE, but using commercial QT, that has no effect on the KDE desktop.
> > >
> > > Lets see...
> > >
> > > SCO releases Linux code under GPL...
> >
> > Did they ?!? No they didn't
> > They are talking about old Unix-Licenses, not about Linux. And SCO also
> > has not licensed Unix to IBM themselves.
>
> It was my understanding that you could download SCO Linux up until about a
> month after they started the lawsuit. By that time, all/most of the
> contested code had to already be in the kernel. Since SCO was supplying it,
> it was released (my opinion).
The lawsuit has nothing to do with Caldera or SCO-Linux. It's to make money.
The SCO-People seem to have read the book "How to make money while doing
nothing" ;-)
>
> IMHO IBM AIX doesn't owe anything to SCO. Sure in the early days, IBM did
> consider using System V... but it had so many problems being ported that
> they completely dropped it, and continued with AIX development instead.
>
> I've used both.. and believe me, AIX doesn't work ANYTHING like System V.
> no virtualization (disks), no partitioning (systems), no distributed
> operations, minimal networking, no Power support... (this was a 202e
> prototype at the time I believe...
>
> All of that belonged to AIX. which even had SMP beginnings (some
> platforms). Even shared memory was not exactly working well on System V
> (semaphores were very slow).
That maybe right, I've never used AIX. But one single line of code would be
enough for SCO. And I think there maybe some more than one line. Surely is it
old code. But they say it's owned by IBM.
I hope that one day jugdes will stop companies and people from making money
that dark way. But I think that this hope is slightly irrealistic.
CU
Thorsten
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> On Thursday 19 June 2003 14:08, Thorsten K?rner wrote:
> > Hi Jesse
> >
> > Am Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2003 20:58 schrieb Jesse Pollard:
> > > On Thursday 19 June 2003 12:37, Downing, Thomas wrote:
> > > > I'm no authority, but IMHO
> > > >
> > > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > >
> > > > > Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > Which makes no sense. You're not at the mercy of Linus or the
> > > > > kernel developers, neither at that of the KDE developers, but
> > > > > TrollTech controls the KDE desktop wrt commercial apps.
> > > >
> > > > No, they don't. KDE uses the GPL for QT. If I build a commercial
> > > > app using KDE, it is GPL. If I build a commercial app not using
> > > > KDE, but using commercial QT, that has no effect on the KDE desktop.
> > >
> > > Lets see...
> > >
> > > SCO releases Linux code under GPL...
> >
> > Did they ?!? No they didn't
> > They are talking about old Unix-Licenses, not about Linux. And SCO also has
> > not licensed Unix to IBM themselves.
>
> It was my understanding that you could download SCO Linux up until about a
> month after they started the lawsuit. By that time, all/most of the contested
> code had to already be in the kernel. Since SCO was supplying it, it was
> released (my opinion).
>
> IMHO IBM AIX doesn't owe anything to SCO. Sure in the early days, IBM did
> consider using System V... but it had so many problems being ported that they
> completely dropped it, and continued with AIX development instead.
>
> I've used both.. and believe me, AIX doesn't work ANYTHING like System V. no
> virtualization (disks), no partitioning (systems), no distributed operations,
> minimal networking, no Power support... (this was a 202e prototype at the
> time I believe...
>
> All of that belonged to AIX. which even had SMP beginnings (some platforms).
> Even shared memory was not exactly working well on System V (semaphores were
> very slow).
If something is so well known that somebody skilled in
the art could reconstruct it. That, having been abandoned
by many over 20 years, if I have a license to use it,
having paid for this license before it became obsolete
many years ago, do I have the privilege of suing those
who acquired knowledge of how to build it from public
information? I think not. And, the first line of defense
against such frivolous lawsuits was supposed to have been
the lawyers. I hope that IBM does not settle out-of-court
and takes the challenge. Once it gets into court there
are going to be some Lawyers who lose their licenses to
practice law.
This is how you stop this kind of abuse. Typically large
companies will decide to settle some claim against them
when the accountants total up how much money it will cost
to defend against the suit. They make some "deal" in
which they admit no wrongdoing, but simply pay off the
extortionists. This is how many of these instances are
"resolved". Unfortunately, this resolution leaves the
door open for other extortionists and the situation
continues.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
Hi Scott
Am Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2003 21:31 schrieb Scott McDermott:
> Thorsten K?rner on Thu 19/06 21:08 +0200:
> > > SCO releases Linux code under GPL...
> >
> > Did they ?!? No they didn't
>
> I recall a fellow named Tigran Aivazian submitting lots of
> kernel patches from an @sco.com address, for one. And then
> there's Caldera OpenLinux, of course. I don't think it's
> relevant though...they can submit as much GPLed code as they
> want and still claim a violation of a contract pertaining to
> some other non-GPLed code that was copied into Linux.
ACK. That's what I wanted to say, that Linux-Distros from SCO or Caldera are
not relevant for that Lawsuit.
CU
Thorsten
Thus spake Thorsten K?rner ([email protected]):
> >
> > It was my understanding that you could download SCO Linux up until about a
> > month after they started the lawsuit. By that time, all/most of the
> > contested code had to already be in the kernel. Since SCO was supplying it,
> > it was released (my opinion).
> The lawsuit has nothing to do with Caldera or SCO-Linux. It's to make money.
> The SCO-People seem to have read the book "How to make money while doing
> nothing" ;-)
> >
Bingo... These guys make a living sueing people:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/19/1245254&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=185&tid=187&tid=88
:wq!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Harris | GPG Key ID: E344DA3B
@ x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu
DISCLAIMER:
These are MY OPINIONS ALONE. I speak for no-one else.
Diagnosis: witzelsucht
IPv6 = [email protected] http://ipv6.rdlg.net
IPv4 = [email protected] http://www.rdlg.net
Jesse Pollard ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Thursday 19 June 2003 14:08, Thorsten K?rner wrote:
>> Did they ?!? No they didn't
>> They are talking about old Unix-Licenses, not about Linux. And SCO also has
>> not licensed Unix to IBM themselves.
>
> It was my understanding that you could download SCO Linux up until about a
> month after they started the lawsuit. By that time, all/most of the contested
> code had to already be in the kernel. Since SCO was supplying it, it was
> released (my opinion).
Not conciously. I'm not familiar with USA laws, but under Dutch laws, you
have to consiously be aware of your actions. SCO can claim they are tricked
into distributing (not releasing) propietary code under the GPL.
>
> IMHO IBM AIX doesn't owe anything to SCO. Sure in the early days, IBM did
> consider using System V... but it had so many problems being ported that they
> completely dropped it, and continued with AIX development instead.
Please remember that this is a *legal* issue, and most of us here are
coders. We may *think* we understand the issues, but we (at least I am) are
looking at it as coders, not lawyers.
> I've used both.. and believe me, AIX doesn't work ANYTHING like System V. no
> virtualization (disks), no partitioning (systems), no distributed operations,
> minimal networking, no Power support... (this was a 202e prototype at the
> time I believe...
Doesn't matter. SCO claims that relatively tiny portions of their unix were
copied into Linux.
--
Erik Hensema <[email protected]>
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 02:30:02PM -0500, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> It was my understanding that you could download SCO Linux up until about a
> month after they started the lawsuit. By that time, all/most of the contested
> code had to already be in the kernel. Since SCO was supplying it, it was
> released (my opinion).
They're STILL distributing Linux.
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Workstation/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/linux-2.4.13-21D.src.rpm
I got the url from
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10018
which is itself an interesting article: it reports on an anonymous
kernel developer sending a cease & desist to SCO/Caldera to stop
distributing that file.
And I checked, the file is still there.
Richard Braakman
On Thursday 19 June 2003 15:18, Erik Hensema wrote:
> Jesse Pollard ([email protected]) wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> > I've used both.. and believe me, AIX doesn't work ANYTHING like System V.
> > no virtualization (disks), no partitioning (systems), no distributed
> > operations, minimal networking, no Power support... (this was a 202e
> > prototype at the time I believe...
>
> Doesn't matter. SCO claims that relatively tiny portions of their unix were
> copied into Linux.
Or is it the other way...
Since the "tiny portions" were (reportedly) not supplied with dates, how does
one know which way any copying may have been done?
This ends up with Mark Twains reponse to the senator who took offense when
told "I have a book with every word of your speech in it...".
The senator was sent a copy of a dictionary.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 01:37:28PM -0400, Downing, Thomas wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >There's no license reason today why there are two big
> > desktop projects
> > >(GNOME and KDE).
> >
> > There is. If you want to develop a commercial application under
> > KDE you need to pay TrollTech for the Qt license. Basically
> > TrollTech controls all commercial KDE applications.
>
> No, you don't, IFF you distribute the source code. Doesn't make
> a lot of sense though. So consider, a for-profit company licenses
> QT for a proprietary app. They send bug fixes/enhancements to QT
> to TrollTech. If these migrate to Free QT, you're ahead of the game.
> If they don't, what did you lose?
>
[snip]
> > What if TrollTech decides to only license (or sell) Qt
> > to, say, Microsoft? What does that mean for, say, the Kompany ?
>
> They can't. They released the code under GPL. They can stop maintaining
> that code, and continue on a proprietary track. If they did, what
> did you lose?
Correct, and this is simple thing is what a lot of anti-KDE folk will
absolutely refuse to accept.
>
> In summary, QT -> GPL, GNOME - GPL, what about _that_ makes one or
> the other inherently preferable or better?
No, the core GNOME and GTK+ libraries are licensed under the terms of
the LGPL. This essentially means closed source works can link to
these libraries. You can't do that with Qt. Whether this is a positive
or a negative is not appropriate to discuss here.
Probably surprising to many (based on the proliferation of ignorant remarks
on various mailing lists), Troll Tech's Qt offering is aligned
more closely with the FSF philosophy than GTK/GNOME (remember the L in LGPL
stands for LESSER after all (well the FSF prefers this now, but the
GNOME/GTK folks continue to use the former version of the license
where the L stands for LIBRARY)).
I think that Qt is a great contribution, but it is misleading to say that
there is no difference between Qt and GNOME licensing.
--jkl
In article <[email protected]> you wrote:
> Probably surprising to many (based on the proliferation of ignorant remarks
> on various mailing lists), Troll Tech's Qt offering is aligned
> more closely with the FSF philosophy than GTK/GNOME (remember the L in LGPL
> stands for LESSER after all (well the FSF prefers this now, but the
> GNOME/GTK folks continue to use the former version of the license
> where the L stands for LIBRARY)).
this is the mysql/sap db way of making money, btw. You publish libs which
are needed to ship with your product under the "free" GPL, and sell a
commercial license for all others. This does work good, as long as you do
not accept major contributions which are not reassigned to your copyright.
Sorry for the OT but I guess the whole thread is :(
Greetings
Bernd
--
eckes privat - http://www.eckes.org/
Project Freefire - http://www.freefire.org/
Downing, Thomas wrote:
>
> No, they don't. KDE uses the GPL for QT. If I build a commercial
> app using KDE, it is GPL. If I build a commercial app not using
> KDE, but using commercial QT, that has no effect on the KDE desktop.
>
I'm over 1100 emails behind here, so please excuse me if I'm repeating
what someone else said.
But are you implying, by analogy, that if I were to write a program
using GTK+ that the application would be forced to be under GPL? So I
can't write a closed-source GNOME program? Or is GTK under LGPL?
Anyhow, I see little problem with the Qt model. If I'm writing a
closed-source commercial app that I'm going to sell, it's no skin off my
nose to pay TrollTech a little money to use their toolkit, considering
that I'm probably going to need some support anyhow.
On Maw, 2003-06-24 at 15:17, Timothy Miller wrote:
> But are you implying, by analogy, that if I were to write a program
> using GTK+ that the application would be forced to be under GPL? So I
> can't write a closed-source GNOME program? Or is GTK under LGPL?
The core gtk/gnome/accessibility libraries are intentionally LGPL