Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on January 06, 2004 03:42 AM
An example of this would be the Qt library. Since it is available under both the GPL and a proprietary license, developers who do not want to use the GPL for their own software will simply use the proprietary version of Qt. That's good for Trolltech, since it gives them a stable of locked-in developers who are dependent on the proprietary-licensed Qt. But Linux and the Open Source community would be better off if Qt was LGPL'd.
Crap. The LGPL is certainly useful in that there are occasions when proprietary and free software need to work, link and communicate together. However, it has become a total and utter excuse for some individuals to claim that proprietary software development is free. There is your FUD. Proprietary software development is not free under any circumstances, and anyone who believes otherwise is a total idiot. There is no business model available to fund more improvements into a toolkit, like Qt, which can be used to develop even better and more GPL'd software; and proprietary software for those who need it.
That's good for Trolltech, since it gives them a stable of locked-in developers who are dependent on the proprietary-licensed Qt.
Locked-in developers. Yer. You don't understand Qt development licenses at all. Using Qt for proprietary development allows developers to publish under a proprietary license of their choice, or a more public license such as the QPL. Since the developers themselves choose whether to use the GPL, QPL, free or open source licenses or a proprietary license of their choice that they can pay for, I'd really love to know how they are locked-in.
The LGPL creates a total dead-end in terms of funding and comeback in terms of future development, and it is by no means certain that any software developer out in the real-world will trust this way of working at all. Almost certainly not is the answer, and unfortunately it will be a means for Microsoft to do some FUD, if they feel the need. I hate to sound like RMS, but the GPL and proprietary software licenses absolutely need to be kept separate in a development sense, and we should use the LGPL on the occasions when we need proprietary licensed and free software to work together. There you have a case for developing genuine free software, and creating a proprietary software business model rolled into one. It's called Qt. How ironic is that? Must be quite a raw nerve for many people out there.
People who expect companies like Trolltech to LGPL their software and say "Hey, we don't care. We're gonna give this away for free and you can develop all the proprietary software you like" and put themselves out of business shows naivety beyond belief. The fact that a company like Trolltech has been kind enough to accomodate and embrace free software licenses is astonishing enough, and a welcome step forward.
This is not FUD, and companies like Ximian are going to find this out in the starkest possible way. Why do you think companies like Helix, Eazel and an independent Ximian have either went bust or had to be bought out by larger companies? (In fact, they've still gone bust). The fact that Ximian is now being shepherded by Novell won't cut any ice with Novell's accountants I'm afraid, and certainly not when they realise they can outsource most of their in-house Ximian development into the community. Guess who has the workable business model there? Yep, you guessed right, although I don't expect you to admit it.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Please stop the FUD
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 06, 2004 03:42 AMCrap. The LGPL is certainly useful in that there are occasions when proprietary and free software need to work, link and communicate together. However, it has become a total and utter excuse for some individuals to claim that proprietary software development is free. There is your FUD. Proprietary software development is not free under any circumstances, and anyone who believes otherwise is a total idiot. There is no business model available to fund more improvements into a toolkit, like Qt, which can be used to develop even better and more GPL'd software; and proprietary software for those who need it.
That's good for Trolltech, since it gives them a stable of locked-in developers who are dependent on the proprietary-licensed Qt.
Locked-in developers. Yer. You don't understand Qt development licenses at all. Using Qt for proprietary development allows developers to publish under a proprietary license of their choice, or a more public license such as the QPL. Since the developers themselves choose whether to use the GPL, QPL, free or open source licenses or a proprietary license of their choice that they can pay for, I'd really love to know how they are locked-in.
The LGPL creates a total dead-end in terms of funding and comeback in terms of future development, and it is by no means certain that any software developer out in the real-world will trust this way of working at all. Almost certainly not is the answer, and unfortunately it will be a means for Microsoft to do some FUD, if they feel the need. I hate to sound like RMS, but the GPL and proprietary software licenses absolutely need to be kept separate in a development sense, and we should use the LGPL on the occasions when we need proprietary licensed and free software to work together. There you have a case for developing genuine free software, and creating a proprietary software business model rolled into one. It's called Qt. How ironic is that? Must be quite a raw nerve for many people out there.
People who expect companies like Trolltech to LGPL their software and say "Hey, we don't care. We're gonna give this away for free and you can develop all the proprietary software you like" and put themselves out of business shows naivety beyond belief. The fact that a company like Trolltech has been kind enough to accomodate and embrace free software licenses is astonishing enough, and a welcome step forward.
This is not FUD, and companies like Ximian are going to find this out in the starkest possible way. Why do you think companies like Helix, Eazel and an independent Ximian have either went bust or had to be bought out by larger companies? (In fact, they've still gone bust). The fact that Ximian is now being shepherded by Novell won't cut any ice with Novell's accountants I'm afraid, and certainly not when they realise they can outsource most of their in-house Ximian development into the community. Guess who has the workable business model there? Yep, you guessed right, although I don't expect you to admit it.
#