KDE vs. GNOME

[raptor]

KDE!

[Faust]

quote:I have dog named "Basje".

Insomnia there a three people here who disagree with you.  Please re read all the documents in question and make sure you understand the distinction between open, free and Free.

[suselinux]

KDE is free and open, but it is based on proprietary software(Trolltech QT --- trolltech.com).  The same way that Linux is based on Unix, not the way SCO says Linux is based on Unix though.

From KDE.org
 

quote: UNIX/KDE constitutes a completely free and open computing platform available to anyone free of charge including its source code for anyone to modify.

 sound like OSS to me

[TheQuirk]

Linux is not based on Unix the same way KDE is based on QT.

If Unix was a library Linux compiled against, or something, that would be a good example. KDE, though, uses QT, which is a library.

[suselinux]

quote:Originally posted by TheQuirk:
Linux is not based on Unix the same way KDE is based on QT.

If Unix was a library Linux compiled against, or something, that would be a good example. KDE, though, uses QT, which is a library.

Yeah what he said

[Faust]

QT is not proprietary.  It is entirely Free.

[suselinux]

quote:Originally posted by Faust:
QT is not proprietary.  It is entirely Free.

But is it opensource?

[Faust]

For Gods fucking sake.  FREE AS IN FREEDOM.  Please actually *READ* about what the difference is.  I know you mean well suselinux but you sound like insomnia...

[suselinux]

quote:Originally posted by Faust:
For Gods fucking sake.  FREE AS IN FREEDOM.  Please actually *READ* about what the difference is.  I know you mean well suselinux but you sound like insomnia...

Beg yer pardon    

soory, on the wrong bandwidth, I thought that YOU didn't know what free ment and were only reffering to the cost

But its annoying when people answer like the way I did

anyway are we all now agreed That KDE  is free, and open?  I think we'ved shown enough proof to support it

Personaly I like KDE better than Gnome

when Im working in Gnome I feel like I should be working not having fun, or even posting here.  I should be writing a report and saying Yes sir, yes sir, yes sir.....

KDE to me represents how Linux can be attractive to everyone, you can make it look like Windows, like OSX, or like KDE.  I also like the configuration options available, and the native apps I like much better than Gnome's.

I think the Linux community should standerdize on KDE ,and IceWM together on every system, let redhat and Sun have Gnome.

Does mad hatter come with KDE, IceWM, etc, or just Gnome?

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by suselinux:
anyway are we all now agreed That KDE  is free, and open?  I think we'ved shown enough proof to support it

Unlike what this 'faust' kid is telling you, ONLY the the latest Qt versions are licensed under both GPL and QPL. Between 1.45 and 2.x? only QPL.
*1.45 And below are under a different license named "FreeQT". FreeQT was NEVER "Open Source".

To clear this wrong information I decompiled a "Qt" package

###This is the license that included the package.###
   
QT FREE EDITION LICENSE

Copyright (C) 1992-1999 Troll Tech AS. All rights reserved.

This is the license for Qt Free Edition version 1.44; it covers private use,
use of third-party application programs based on Qt, and development of
free software for the free software community.


                      COPYRIGHT AND RESTRICTIONS

The Qt toolkit is a product of Troll Tech AS. The Qt Free Edition is limited
to use with the X Window System.

You may copy this version of the Qt Free Edition provided that the entire
archive is distributed unchanged and as a whole, including this notice.

You may use this version of the Qt Free Edition to compile, link and run
application programs legally developed by third parties.

You may use the Qt Free Edition to create application programs
provided that:

You accept this license.
Your software does not require modifications to Qt Free Edition. You satisfy ONE of the following three requirements

EITHER
Users of your software can freely obtain source  code for the software, freely modify the source code (possibly with restrictions on copyright notices, attributions and legal responsibility), and freely redistribute original or modified versions of the software.

OR
Your software is distributed under the GNU GENERAL
PUBLIC LICENSE, version 2 or later, as defined by the Free Software Foundation.

OR
Your software is distributed under the GNU LIBRARY
GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, version 2 or later, as
defined by the Free Software Foundation.

If you are paid to develop something with Qt Free Edition or it is a part of
your job the following conditions also apply:

Your software must not require libraries, programs, data or documentation that are not available outside your organization in order to compile or use.
If and when your organization starts using the software, you must notify Troll Tech AS of the following:
  Your organization's name and purpose.
  The software's name and purpose.
  The software's license.  
  That your organization considers the software to be free  software.

You may also use the Qt Free Edition to create reusable components
(such as libraries) provided that you accept the terms above, and in
addition that:

Your components' license includes the following text:

[Your package] requires the Qt library, which is
copyright Troll Tech AS. Freely distributable
programs may generally use Qt Free Edition free of
charge, see [README.QT] for details.

README.QT is distributed along with your components.
Qt Free Edition is not distributed as an integral part of your components.

                       LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY

Troll Tech AS makes no obligation under this license to support or
upgrade Qt Free Edition, or assist in the use of Qt Free Edition.

In no event shall Troll Tech AS be liable for any lost revenue or profits or
other direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, even
if Troll Tech has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

QT FREE EDITION IS PROVIDED AS IS WITH NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
INCLUDING THE WARRANTY OF DESIGN, MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

 
-------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE the differences for version 2.

PS: Don't get me wrong, I like KDE and if you only use one of the latest versions you will only be using "Open Source" software. But NOT if you use an old version(needfull for an old CPU)

[Faust]

quote:anyway are we all now agreed That KDE  is free, and open?  I think we'ved shown enough proof to support it

Thanks, sorry I snapped at you...  And insomnia grow the fuck up - I am not a child, so stop trying to justify your arguments with insults.

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by Faust:

Thanks, sorry I snapped at you...  And insomnia grow the fuck up - I am not a child, so stop trying to justify your arguments with insults.

That wasn't an insult, your registration sais 19.
What's wrong with being young???

[Faust]

insomnia:
 

quote:KDE isn't completely "Open Source" (unlike GNOME)

 

quote:KDE not being completely open source was the main reason for GNU to start the Gnome project. Just read their introduction.

Lets of course ignore the PAST TENSE here...

 

quote:]No, QT is now Free Software. Gnome being Free Software was the main reason why QT became Free Software.

 

quote:There are many Open Source software projects that are not free.
*EXACTLTY MY POINT

You just contradicted yourself.  You do this a *LOT*

 

quote:Yes, I accept that QT pre-2.2 was, and still is, non-free. The current version of QT i.e. 3.x, however, IS free. So the current version of KDE is as Free as GNOME.

other people:
 

quote:Maybe you should read it yourself. KDE fits under all of those things.

 

quote:anyway are we all now agreed That KDE  is free, and open?  I think we'ved shown enough proof to support it

Throughout the course of this discussion your views have changed from:
kde isn't open source
to:
kde wasn't open source
to:
kde is as free as gnome

Given you can't even mantain a consistent argument try thinking about what you're saying more.

Suse : I think Mad Hatter will use an entirely new WM.

[Faust]

quote:
We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software.  

 ``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price.  To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.  More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
 
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).  
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs       (freedom 1).   Access to the source code is a precondition for this.  
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor       (freedom 2).  
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements      to the public, so that the whole community benefits       (freedom 3).   Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere.  Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.  

[ September 13, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]

[Faust]

quote:
While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas.

 In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using the term ``open source software'' instead of ``free software'' to describe what they do.  The term ``open source'' quickly became associated with a different approach, a different philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which licenses are acceptable.  The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are today  separate movements with different views and goals, although we can and do work together on some practical projects.

 The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world.  For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one.  As one person put it, ``Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.''  For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution.  For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.  


 Relationship between the Free Software movement and Open Source movement

 The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are like two political camps within the free software community.

 Radical groups in the 1960s developed a reputation for factionalism: organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, and then treated each other as enemies.  Or at least, such is the image people have of them, whether or not it was true.

 The relationship between the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement is just the opposite of that picture.  We disagree on the basic principles, but agree more or less on the practical recommendations.  So we can and do work together on many specific projects.  We don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. The enemy is  proprietary software.

 We are not against the Open Source movement, but we don't want to be lumped in with them.  We acknowledge that they have contributed to our community, but we created this community, and we want people to know this.  We want people to associate our achievements with our values and our philosophy, not with theirs.  We want to be heard, not obscured behind a group with different views.  To prevent people from thinking we are part of them, we take pains to avoid using the word ``open'' to describe free software, or its contrary, ``closed'', in talking about non-free software.

 So please mention the Free Software movement when you talk about the work we have done, and the software we have developed--such as the GNU/Linux operating system.


Comparing the two terms
  This rest of this article compares the two terms ``free software'' and ``open source''.  It shows why the term ``open source'' does not solve any problems, and in fact creates some.  

Ambiguity
  The term ``free software'' has an ambiguity problem: an unintended meaning, ``Software you can get for zero price,'' fits the term just as well as the intended meaning, ``software which gives the user certain freedoms.''  We address this problem by publishing a  more precise definition of free software, but this is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem.  An unambiguously correct term would be better, if it didn't have other problems.  

 Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own.  We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, but none is so clearly ``right'' that switching to it would be a good idea.  Every proposed replacement for ``free software'' has a similar kind of semantic problem, or worse--and this includes ``open source software.''  

 The official definition of ``open source software,'' as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users.  However,  the obvious meaning for the expression ``open source software'' is ``You can look at the source code.''  This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes  semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).

 That obvious meaning for ``open source'' is not the meaning that its advocates intend.  The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating.  Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined ``open source'':


Linux is ``open source'' software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.  

I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the ``official'' definition.  I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition:

Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.  

Of course, the open source people have tried to deal with this by publishing a precise definition for the term, just as we have done for ``free software.''

 But the explanation for ``free software'' is simple--a person who has grasped the idea of ``free speech, not free beer'' will not get it wrong again.  There is no such succinct way to explain the official meaning of ``open source'' and show clearly why the natural definition is the wrong one.


Fear of Freedom
  The main argument for the term ``open source software'' is that ``free software'' makes some people uneasy.  That's true: talking about freedom, about ethical issues, about responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to think about things they might rather ignore.  This can trigger discomfort, and some people may reject the idea for that.  It does not follow that society would be better off if we stop talking about these things.

 Years ago, free software developers noticed this discomfort reaction, and some started exploring an approach for avoiding it.  They figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only about the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might be able to ``sell'' the software more effectively to certain users, especially business.  The term ``open source'' is offered as a way of doing more of this--a way to be ``more acceptable to business.''  The views and values of the Open Source movement stem from this decision.

 This approach has proved effective, in its own terms.  Today many people are switching to free software for purely practical reasons. That is good, as far as it goes, but that isn't all we need to do! Attracting users to free software is not the whole job, just the first step.

 Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary software for some practical advantage.  Countless companies seek to offer such temptation, and why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, for its own sake.  It is up to us to spread this idea--and in order to do that, we have to talk about freedom.  A certain amount of the ``keep quiet'' approach to business can be useful for the community, but we must have plenty of freedom talk too.

 At present, we have plenty of ``keep quiet'', but not enough freedom talk.  Most people involved with free software say little about freedom--usually because they seek to be ``more acceptable to business.''  Software distributors especially show this pattern.  Some GNU/Linux operating system distributions add proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to consider this an advantage, rather than a step backwards from freedom.

 We are failing to keep up with the influx of free software users, failing to teach people about freedom and our community as fast as they enter it.  This is why non-free software (which Qt was when it first became popular), and partially non-free operating system distributions, find such fertile ground.  To stop using the word ``free'' now would be a mistake; we need more, not less, talk about freedom.  

 If those using the term ``open source'' draw more users into our community, that is a contribution, but the rest of us will have to work even harder to bring the issue of freedom to those users' attention.  We have to say, ``It's free software and it gives you freedom!''--more and louder than ever before.


Would a Trademark Help?

 The advocates of ``open source software'' tried to make it a trademark, saying this would enable them to prevent misuse.  This initiative was later dropped, the term being too descriptive to qualify as a trademark; thus, the legal status of ``open source'' is the same as that of ``free software'': there is no legal constraint on using it.  I have heard reports of a number of companies' calling software packages ``open source'' even though they did not fit the official definition; I have observed some instances myself.  

But would it have made a big difference to use a term that is a trademark?  Not necessarily.  

Companies also made announcements that give the impression that a program is ``open source software'' without explicitly saying so.  For example, one IBM announcement, about a program that did not fit the official definition, said this:  As is common in the open source community, users of the ... technology will also be able to collaborate with IBM ...  

This did not actually say that the program was ``open source'', but many readers did not notice that detail.  (I should note that IBM was sincerely trying to make this program free software, and later adopted a new license which does make it free software and ``open source''; but when that announcement was made, the program did not qualify as either one.)  

And here is how Cygnus Solutions, which was formed to be a free software company and subsequently branched out (so to speak) into proprietary software, advertised some proprietary software products:  Cygnus Solutions is a leader in the open source market and has just launched two products into the [GNU/]Linux marketplace.    

Unlike IBM, Cygnus was not trying to make these packages free software, and the packages did not come close to qualifying.  But Cygnus didn't actually say that these are ``open source software'', they just made use of the term to give careless readers that impression.  

These observations suggest that a trademark would not have truly prevented the confusion that comes with the term ``open source''.  


 Misunderstandings(?) of ``Open Source''

 The Open Source Definition is clear enough, and it is quite clear that the typical non-free program does not qualify.  So you would think that ``Open Source company'' would mean one whose products are free software (or close to it), right?  Alas, many companies are trying to give it a different meaning.

 At the ``Open Source Developers Day'' meeting in August 1998, several of the commercial developers invited said they intend to make only a part of their work free software (or ``open source'').  The focus of their business is on developing proprietary add-ons (software or manuals) to sell to the users of this free software.  They ask us to regard this as legitimate, as part of our community, because some of the money is donated to free software development.

 In effect, these companies seek to gain the favorable cachet of ``open source'' for their proprietary software products--even though those are not ``open source software''--because they have some relationship to free software or because the same company also maintains some free software.  (One company founder said quite explicitly that they would put, into the free package they support, as little of their work as the community would stand for.)

 Over the years, many companies have contributed to free software development.  Some of these companies primarily developed non-free software, but the two activities were separate; thus, we could ignore their non-free products, and work with them on free software projects. Then we could honestly thank them afterward for their free software contributions, without talking about the rest of what they did.

 We cannot do the same with these new companies, because they won't let us.  These companies actively invite the public to lump all their activities together; they want us to regard their non-free software as favorably as we would regard a real contribution, although it is not one.  They present themselves as ``open source companies,'' hoping that we will get a warm fuzzy feeling about them, and that we will be fuzzy-minded in applying it.

 This manipulative practice would be no less harmful if it were done using the term ``free software.''  But companies do not seem to use the term ``free software'' that way; perhaps its association with idealism makes it seem unsuitable.  The term ``open source'' opened the door for this.

 At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often referred to as ``Linux'', the featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company. He was probably invited on account of his company's decision to ``support'' that system.  Unfortunately, their form of ``support'' consists of releasing non-free software that works with the system--in other words, using our community as a market but not contributing to it.

 He said, ``There is no way we will make our product open source, but perhaps we will make it `internal' open source.  If we allow our customer support staff to have access to the source code, they could fix bugs for the customers, and we could provide a better product and better service.''  (This is not an exact quote, as I did not write his words down, but it gets the gist.)

 People in the audience afterward told me, ``He just doesn't get the point.''  But is that so?  Which point did he not get?

 He did not miss the point of the Open Source movement.  That movement does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and better development.  The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company.

 The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom.

 Spreading the idea of freedom is a big job--it needs your help. That's why we stick to the term ``free software'' in the GNU Project, so we can help do that job.  If you feel that freedom and community are important for their own sake--not just for the convenience they bring--please join us in using the term ``free software''.

[ September 13, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]