Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on January 06, 2004 06:14 AM
> 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.
What are you talking about? The business model that is central to Open Source (shared development effort) has been explained many times. And Linux is proof that it works.
Why do you Trolltech supporters use arguments that come straight from the Microsoft FUD book? Is there a connection between Trolltech and Microsoft?
> 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.
You're right. Developers who have based their software on proprietary Qt can escape their lock-in by GPL'ing their software.
Yet the rest of your post is saying that developers can't make money if they Open Source their software.
So you're saying that proprietary developers are not locked in to Qt, because they always have the option of giving up their income.
But you berate other people for preferring the LGPL for Qt because it would cause Trolltech to lose income.
Your argument is contradictory and hypocritical.
> 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.
I see. So you're saying that we should just give up this whole Open Source thing, because it's a dead-end.
You would have us give up Linux, give up Apache, give up Mozilla, give up Gnome, give up GTK, give up PHP, give up Red Hat, give up Debian, and so on, because they're all pure Open Source and can't possibly survive "out in the real-world."
Well, thank you for being so honest about it.
I take your post as an indication that Trolltech isn't really a supporter of Open Source. They are only pretending to be in order to gain promotion. As you are saying, Trolltech makes their money by selling proprietary software, i.e. the proprietary version of Qt.
> 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.
Nobody said Trolltech is expected to LGPL their software.
On the contrary, I expect Trolltech to carry on as they are, as a seller of proprietary software.
And as a seller of proprietary software, I expect Trolltech to continue to push their GPL+proprietary lock-in scheme, even to the point of paying people to post in Linux forums.
I can't help what Trolltech does, and I'm not talking to Trolltech at all.
Instead, I am talking to other Linux users and developers.
And I am telling them that they will be better off using LGPL'd libraries (such as GTK, PHP, the Mozilla XPToolkit, and so on) to do their development.
> 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).
And yet Linux, Apache, Mozilla, Nautilus, Mono, PHP, GTK, The Gimp, OpenOffice, and countless other Open Source projects continue to not only survive, but to outstrip Microsoft in speed of development, and quality.
You really don't have any faith in Open Source, do you?
Perhaps you should go and do some reading, and come back when you can understand how all of those Open Source projects continue to thrive. You should be able to answer, for example, what value was returned when IBM, Sun, AOL, and others contributed to the development of Mozilla and Apache.
> Guess who has the workable business model there? Yep, you guessed right, although I don't expect you to admit it.
On the contrary, I fully admit that Trolltech's business model of 1) giving something away for free to promote their product, then 2) making money by selling proprietary software, is a fully workable business model. After all, Microsoft has used that model for years.
Unfortunately, that model requires me, as a developer and user, to accept being locked-in to a proprietary platform (Qt in this case, if I use or develop proprietary Qt-based software).
So Trolltech can continue to follow their business model of giving away GPL'd Qt, and selling proprietary Qt.
But, as a developer and a user, I will look elsewhere, and concentrate on using only Open Source tools. GTK+ and the Mozilla XPToolkit, for example, are both high quality LGPL'd development tools, and are both progressing nicely.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Please stop the FUD
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 06, 2004 06:14 AMWhat are you talking about? The business model that is central to Open Source (shared development effort) has been explained many times. And Linux is proof that it works.
Why do you Trolltech supporters use arguments that come straight from the Microsoft FUD book? Is there a connection between Trolltech and Microsoft?
> 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.
You're right. Developers who have based their software on proprietary Qt can escape their lock-in by GPL'ing their software.
Yet the rest of your post is saying that developers can't make money if they Open Source their software.
So you're saying that proprietary developers are not locked in to Qt, because they always have the option of giving up their income.
But you berate other people for preferring the LGPL for Qt because it would cause Trolltech to lose income.
Your argument is contradictory and hypocritical.
> 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.
I see. So you're saying that we should just give up this whole Open Source thing, because it's a dead-end.
You would have us give up Linux, give up Apache, give up Mozilla, give up Gnome, give up GTK, give up PHP, give up Red Hat, give up Debian, and so on, because they're all pure Open Source and can't possibly survive "out in the real-world."
Well, thank you for being so honest about it.
I take your post as an indication that Trolltech isn't really a supporter of Open Source. They are only pretending to be in order to gain promotion. As you are saying, Trolltech makes their money by selling proprietary software, i.e. the proprietary version of Qt.
> 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.
Nobody said Trolltech is expected to LGPL their software.
On the contrary, I expect Trolltech to carry on as they are, as a seller of proprietary software.
And as a seller of proprietary software, I expect Trolltech to continue to push their GPL+proprietary lock-in scheme, even to the point of paying people to post in Linux forums.
I can't help what Trolltech does, and I'm not talking to Trolltech at all.
Instead, I am talking to other Linux users and developers.
And I am telling them that they will be better off using LGPL'd libraries (such as GTK, PHP, the Mozilla XPToolkit, and so on) to do their development.
> 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).
And yet Linux, Apache, Mozilla, Nautilus, Mono, PHP, GTK, The Gimp, OpenOffice, and countless other Open Source projects continue to not only survive, but to outstrip Microsoft in speed of development, and quality.
You really don't have any faith in Open Source, do you?
Perhaps you should go and do some reading, and come back when you can understand how all of those Open Source projects continue to thrive. You should be able to answer, for example, what value was returned when IBM, Sun, AOL, and others contributed to the development of Mozilla and Apache.
> Guess who has the workable business model there? Yep, you guessed right, although I don't expect you to admit it.
On the contrary, I fully admit that Trolltech's business model of 1) giving something away for free to promote their product, then 2) making money by selling proprietary software, is a fully workable business model. After all, Microsoft has used that model for years.
Unfortunately, that model requires me, as a developer and user, to accept being locked-in to a proprietary platform (Qt in this case, if I use or develop proprietary Qt-based software).
So Trolltech can continue to follow their business model of giving away GPL'd Qt, and selling proprietary Qt.
But, as a developer and a user, I will look elsewhere, and concentrate on using only Open Source tools. GTK+ and the Mozilla XPToolkit, for example, are both high quality LGPL'd development tools, and are both progressing nicely.
#