Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on January 06, 2004 08:25 PM
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.
Linux is different. Linus licensed the Linux kernel via the GPL, not because of pseudo free software political reasons as some people might think, but because he wanted a cycle of comeback on kernel development so that it would snowball. BSD is a license that works for many people, but as Linus has pointed out it means that commercial entities can simply take it and give nothing back - nothing is free. Licensing under the GPL is the best thing Linus did with Linux. Linus is the guy that makes Linux work, and I shudder to think what things would be like without him. It is not a business model for selling software, but creating software that people really want and need to invest in. This uncategorically works, very well and is something you don't understand, despite it being explained many times.
Why do you Trolltech supporters use arguments that come straight from the Microsoft FUD book? Is there a connection between Trolltech and Microsoft?
Oh, the Microsoft FUD. Well I suppose it had to happen. You think this because you haven't understood what I have written, but I didn't expect anyone to really.
Yet the rest of your post is saying that developers can't make money if they Open Source their software.
You open source something and make money from related support services etc. for software where it is just unreasonable to charge license fees, or where it opens up more business opportunities if you open the source, although you could argue you are licensing a service. That is up to the customer to decide. However, it is impossible thus far to make a critical mass of money from services and support alone (just ask Red Hat), particularly if you are involved in development. Is it a service or a product or both? This is where many free and open source peoples' business understanding falls by the way side completely. The UserLinux mailing list is a good place to start on this.
So you're saying that proprietary developers are not locked in to Qt, because they always have the option of giving up their income.
Why shouldn't they give up their income for proprietary software as Qt does, or their right to keep their source code secret as the Linux kernel does? Both are totally workable models and can be chosen depending on what works best for people. Nothing is free in either case, you just pay in the way that works best for you. Pretending that proprietary software can be developed on a widespread basis for free is just stupid, and completely breaks the two working business models. We will get to a point where proprietary software can be developed for free however, but when we do people will simply do their own development by telling their computers what they want to do. We will cease to need software development or even technical services and support companies and cease to need open source projects and initiatives like UserLinux - but there will still be communities of course. This is a long, long, long, long way off in the future.
And as a seller of proprietary software, I expect Trolltech to continue to push their GPL+proprietary lock-in scheme,
Qt is not a lock-in scheme at all. I have already explained the licensing of Qt. Qt would be a lock-in play if I could only get Qt to work with stuff written with Qt - as Microsoft does with Windows. This is simply not the case. Qt can use and work with software published under many different licenses, whether proprietary or open source or free. The LGPL facilitates this proprietary and free software linking and working together - which is what the LGPL should be used for.
even to the point of paying people to post in Linux forums.
Well I wish I did!! You can think that if you want.
I take your post as an indication that Trolltech isn't really a supporter of Open Source.
What, you mean licensing Qt under the GPL and forming the Free Qt foundation that completely ensures the integrity and future of Qt, whatever may happen, and putting in place legally binding contracts to ensure this is the case? Yer, you're right. Trolltech are terrible supporters of Open Source compared to Novell or Sun who think they're going to own the community. Have Sun done this with Java or Novell with any of their core software? Sun could take a leaf out of Trolltech's book regarding Java, but they won't.
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.
Well, you need to start talking to people in the business world. Many of these tools are good enough for open source projects, but they are simply not good enough in the commercial world. The only one that really is is PHP, but that is web development.
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.
Linux, Apache and Open Office are commercial and community backed projects. They are genuine successes in their own right, but in terms of all of the VBA-like office applications developed, Open Office has yet to prove itself. True, but I'm sure it will. Mozilla is a community backed project, but they had software based on what was a commercial product from Netscape. Nautilus had several million dollars of venture capital pumped into it with no return on investment at all, and depending on who you talk to it is either good or not good enough. Mono, GTK and The Gimp are good for what they are intended for, but commercially they pale into insignificance against Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, Qt (and Qt is a heck of a lot more than a graphical toolkit), Borland, Rational, Adobe Photoshop etc. This is simply a business reality I'm afraid, and free software needs to fund itself better to make sure we can compete with all of the above. Mono will be a disaster simply because it will be seen by software development shops as a way of taking their Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET compiled runtimes and running them on Linux. It will not be seen as an alternative. When it doesn't work they won't use it, and Microsoft is very adept at making sure alternatives technically don't work with their software.
You really don't have any faith in Open Source, do you?
Yes I do. But it must work.
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.
I doubt whether AOL contributes to much these days. I think you should do some reading and find out that all of these projects are not equal, and in the successful ones, nothing is completely free.
On the contrary, I fully admit that Trolltech's business model of 1) giving something away for free to promote their product,
Contradiction here. Trolltech and the people who use Qt, like at KDE, do not pretend that proprietary software is free.
then 2) making money by selling proprietary software, is a fully workable business model. After all, Microsoft has used that model for years.
So Microsoft has open sourced its development tools, GPL'd them, and initiated a Free Win32 or Free<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET foundation and put in legal contracts to ensure the integrity of Microsoft development tools as free software. All I can say is wow! There is a fundamental difference here. Microsoft gives software away to lock people in, or to get into markets they are not in. Novell and Ximian are pretending that prorietary software development is free, presumably to lock you into Novell services, software stack and support. Sun sees it as a way of trying desperately to beat Microsoft, get people to buy Sun software and servers, but with no clear vision.
Nice comparison<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).
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).
As I have explained above, Qt does not lock you in. Go away and learn about what Qt is first. And you're going to have to pay a license for proprietary software you are going to develop, potentially sell and use as a business opportunity? Poor you!!
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.
For open source development yes. For serious commercial development you're on a hiding to nothing. GTK+ and the Mozilla Toolkit are so far away from being as full-featured as development tools such as MS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, Qt, Borland tools, Rational tools etc. it is unbelievable.
Software development tools are an entirely different kettle of fish, simply because that is the fulcrum where software actually gets developed. Mixing free and proprietary software in the manner that many are doing with the LGPL is very silly. This is not what the LGPL was logically designed for, which is what my original point was about.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Please stop the FUD
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 06, 2004 08:25 PMLinux is different. Linus licensed the Linux kernel via the GPL, not because of pseudo free software political reasons as some people might think, but because he wanted a cycle of comeback on kernel development so that it would snowball. BSD is a license that works for many people, but as Linus has pointed out it means that commercial entities can simply take it and give nothing back - nothing is free. Licensing under the GPL is the best thing Linus did with Linux. Linus is the guy that makes Linux work, and I shudder to think what things would be like without him. It is not a business model for selling software, but creating software that people really want and need to invest in. This uncategorically works, very well and is something you don't understand, despite it being explained many times.
Why do you Trolltech supporters use arguments that come straight from the Microsoft FUD book? Is there a connection between Trolltech and Microsoft?
Oh, the Microsoft FUD. Well I suppose it had to happen. You think this because you haven't understood what I have written, but I didn't expect anyone to really.
Yet the rest of your post is saying that developers can't make money if they Open Source their software.
You open source something and make money from related support services etc. for software where it is just unreasonable to charge license fees, or where it opens up more business opportunities if you open the source, although you could argue you are licensing a service. That is up to the customer to decide. However, it is impossible thus far to make a critical mass of money from services and support alone (just ask Red Hat), particularly if you are involved in development. Is it a service or a product or both? This is where many free and open source peoples' business understanding falls by the way side completely. The UserLinux mailing list is a good place to start on this.
So you're saying that proprietary developers are not locked in to Qt, because they always have the option of giving up their income.
Why shouldn't they give up their income for proprietary software as Qt does, or their right to keep their source code secret as the Linux kernel does? Both are totally workable models and can be chosen depending on what works best for people. Nothing is free in either case, you just pay in the way that works best for you. Pretending that proprietary software can be developed on a widespread basis for free is just stupid, and completely breaks the two working business models. We will get to a point where proprietary software can be developed for free however, but when we do people will simply do their own development by telling their computers what they want to do. We will cease to need software development or even technical services and support companies and cease to need open source projects and initiatives like UserLinux - but there will still be communities of course. This is a long, long, long, long way off in the future.
And as a seller of proprietary software, I expect Trolltech to continue to push their GPL+proprietary lock-in scheme,
Qt is not a lock-in scheme at all. I have already explained the licensing of Qt. Qt would be a lock-in play if I could only get Qt to work with stuff written with Qt - as Microsoft does with Windows. This is simply not the case. Qt can use and work with software published under many different licenses, whether proprietary or open source or free. The LGPL facilitates this proprietary and free software linking and working together - which is what the LGPL should be used for.
even to the point of paying people to post in Linux forums.
Well I wish I did!! You can think that if you want.
I take your post as an indication that Trolltech isn't really a supporter of Open Source.
What, you mean licensing Qt under the GPL and forming the Free Qt foundation that completely ensures the integrity and future of Qt, whatever may happen, and putting in place legally binding contracts to ensure this is the case? Yer, you're right. Trolltech are terrible supporters of Open Source compared to Novell or Sun who think they're going to own the community. Have Sun done this with Java or Novell with any of their core software? Sun could take a leaf out of Trolltech's book regarding Java, but they won't.
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.
Well, you need to start talking to people in the business world. Many of these tools are good enough for open source projects, but they are simply not good enough in the commercial world. The only one that really is is PHP, but that is web development.
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.
Linux, Apache and Open Office are commercial and community backed projects. They are genuine successes in their own right, but in terms of all of the VBA-like office applications developed, Open Office has yet to prove itself. True, but I'm sure it will. Mozilla is a community backed project, but they had software based on what was a commercial product from Netscape. Nautilus had several million dollars of venture capital pumped into it with no return on investment at all, and depending on who you talk to it is either good or not good enough. Mono, GTK and The Gimp are good for what they are intended for, but commercially they pale into insignificance against Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, Qt (and Qt is a heck of a lot more than a graphical toolkit), Borland, Rational, Adobe Photoshop etc. This is simply a business reality I'm afraid, and free software needs to fund itself better to make sure we can compete with all of the above. Mono will be a disaster simply because it will be seen by software development shops as a way of taking their Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET compiled runtimes and running them on Linux. It will not be seen as an alternative. When it doesn't work they won't use it, and Microsoft is very adept at making sure alternatives technically don't work with their software.
You really don't have any faith in Open Source, do you?
Yes I do. But it must work.
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.
I doubt whether AOL contributes to much these days. I think you should do some reading and find out that all of these projects are not equal, and in the successful ones, nothing is completely free.
On the contrary, I fully admit that Trolltech's business model of 1) giving something away for free to promote their product,
Contradiction here. Trolltech and the people who use Qt, like at KDE, do not pretend that proprietary software is free.
then 2) making money by selling proprietary software, is a fully workable business model. After all, Microsoft has used that model for years.
So Microsoft has open sourced its development tools, GPL'd them, and initiated a Free Win32 or Free<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET foundation and put in legal contracts to ensure the integrity of Microsoft development tools as free software. All I can say is wow! There is a fundamental difference here. Microsoft gives software away to lock people in, or to get into markets they are not in. Novell and Ximian are pretending that prorietary software development is free, presumably to lock you into Novell services, software stack and support. Sun sees it as a way of trying desperately to beat Microsoft, get people to buy Sun software and servers, but with no clear vision.
Nice comparison<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).
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).
As I have explained above, Qt does not lock you in. Go away and learn about what Qt is first. And you're going to have to pay a license for proprietary software you are going to develop, potentially sell and use as a business opportunity? Poor you!!
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.
For open source development yes. For serious commercial development you're on a hiding to nothing. GTK+ and the Mozilla Toolkit are so far away from being as full-featured as development tools such as MS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, Qt, Borland tools, Rational tools etc. it is unbelievable.
Software development tools are an entirely different kettle of fish, simply because that is the fulcrum where software actually gets developed. Mixing free and proprietary software in the manner that many are doing with the LGPL is very silly. This is not what the LGPL was logically designed for, which is what my original point was about.
#