4 ms·
I will always love KDE! When I first used it, I said to myself, "How is this free!?" I was surprised to see how a free software organization made a much better
by NayamAmarshe 3y ago
I will always love KDE! When I first used it, I said to myself, "How is this free!?"
I was surprised to see how a free software organization made a much better software than a trillion dollar corpo.
I just wish they had enough resources. KDE is the hope for the future of free software. I hope Valve can help them become mainstream. Just waiting for the day a big corpo will appear and make Linux compete with macOS and Apple's hardware directly.
- inetknght 3y ago> I was surprised to see how a free software organization made a much better software than a trillion dollar corpo. The surprise wears off as you start using more and more open source software that's either on-par with or significantly better than paid software.
- gumballindie 3y agoThats what happens when you allow engineers to do engineering stuff. I just wish there was a way to turn projects such as kde into commercial success stories, without compromising open source, privacy and tech. If financed properly kde and similar projects can survive long term.
- msie 3y agoIt's not free if you want to sell a product made with it.
- mattl 3y agoKDE? Sure it is.
- fluoridation 3y agoSo if I give away milk to convince people to buy my cheese, that means the milk isn't free?
- msie 3y agoFree as in keeping the source to your product closed-source. Otherwise you have to buy a license if you want to keep it close-source while statically linking it.
- michaelsbradley 3y agoIncorrect.
- cosmojg 3y agoThis is just plainly false.
- freedomben 3y agoIncorrect. The open source license is LGPL. If you dynamically link you can even keep your app code proprietary. If you want to statically link Qt then your code must be LGPL, but that also doesn't prevent you from selling the product.
- msie 3y agoYeah, I am mistaken but you do have to give away source to your product because of the viral nature of the LPGL. So it's not completely free to do what you want. And I've always been suspicious of the dynamic linking loophole.
- michaelsbradley 3y agoIncorrect.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- fluoridation 3y agoThe so-called dynamic linking loophole applies to the GPL, not the LGPL. An LGPL library can be linked and distributed with a closed source program if the end user is able to replace the library with a build of their own. The loophole you're referring to involves creating a generic plugin interface that allows the program to use any library as long as it meets the requirements of the plugin system. If the program can function even when no plugins are present, the program cannot be said to be derivative of any plugin; it's the plugins that depend on the program, not vice versa. Therefore, you could for example develop an open source plugin that extends the functionality of your program and depends on GPL'd components and distribute that plugin binary and its source code with your closed source application.
- michaelsbradley 3y agoYou don’t have to make your code LGPL even if you statically link, though that is a common misunderstanding (sometimes a promoted misunderstanding). https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynami... If you statically link against an LGPLed library, you must also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application.
- inetknght 3y ago> It's not free if you want to sell a product made with it. No software at all is worth buying if you can't have the source code.