[techtalk] KDE / OpenSource

[Dan Nguyen]

Hi Caitlyn,

On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 04:59:13PM -0400, Caitlyn M. Martin wrote:
> > KDE is NOT free software!  GNOME/HELIX IS!
> 
> I completely disagree.  So does ESR, for that matter.  KDE does meet the 
> Open Source definition, and I happen to accept ESR's opinion on it.

Free is a terrible word to use, even if you condiser Gnome free,
another person may not.  My own personal definition of free only apply
to code which is in the public domain.  The GPL puts great
restrictions on use of the code, this is so proprietary software
cannot use the GPL code in their own software.  Some people feel that
this is a necessary protection to their code.

 
> Now, if you are saying the LGPL is not "Free" as defined by Richard 
> Sta1lman, then perhaps you are correct.  The fact that I often disagree with 
> his point of view may have something to do with how I am willing to define 
> what software is commercial and what is free/Open Source.

The LGPL was created because the GPL is so restrictive, and if you
consider the GPL "free" than surely you must consider the LGPL (Lesser
GPL) less "free".  Infact by my measuring stick, the LGPL gives you
more freedom.  


> I have played with Gnome repeatedly.  I am still left feeling that it is 
> bloated, somewhat buggy, and generally not impressive when compared with 
> KDE, but that is *my* opinion.

Make sure to try Gnome 1.2, (use sawfish not E) if you have not
already.  However when comparing Gnome and KDE, they are very
diffrent.  My opinion about both products that they are bloated, and
designed to hold a newbie's hand.  Gnome does less of this, than KDE.
I really feel that if anyone is serious about learning how to use
Linux should avoid both desktop enviroment, and learn how to use the
CLI more effectively.  I haven't used KDE very much, infact the only
QT application I have installed is Licq, whisch isn't even a KDE
application.  So I will stick to critiqueing Gnome.  I've used Gnome
on and off for about a year.  Gnome's stability has much improved,
most core applications are stable, though a large number of Gnome
applications aren't.  Their file browser, gmc, is very bloated and is
barely usable.  My preference is to have several xterms (actually
Eterm) and work from there.


> Please, though, do not presume to tell me what is and is not free.  I have 
> yet to pay for KDE, I may distribute it as I see fit, I may modify it, and 
> so long as I don't use the code to create a closed/commercial product, I may 
> distribute my modifications as well.  That's free enough for me.

A large majority of people decide on if a product is free on how much
money they spend on it.  If that is the case, some products are free
and still not open-sourced.  Internet Explorer comes to mind there.

But is KDE "free"?  It's definately open-sourced, and it's definately
doesn't require any payment to use.  To most users that is enough.
Most people don't see what the problem is with KDE, neither do the KDE
developers.  The problem is Debian's intreptation of the GPL.  KDE2
(KDE1 is a different story) is released under the GPL.  However KDE2
requires liking against QT2 released under the QPL.  The GPL prohibits
ditributing softawre that is linke to non-GPL libraries, unless they
are system libraries.  Debian does not consider the QT libraries to be
system libraries.  It is Debian's opinion that they and everyone else
cannot legally distribute KDE.  But in the end it's up to you to
decide.  


-- 
     Dan Nguyen     |  It is with true love as it is with ghosts;
  nguyend7 at msu.edu  |  everyone talks of it, but few have seent it.
   dnn at debian.org   |                -Maxime De La Rochefoucauld