5 ms·

> Qt which was non free It was GPL licenced. If you call that "non-free" that's downright Orwellian.

jorams 3y ago
That's not true. It was first released under the Qt Free Edition License, which was nonfree. Harmony was started in that time. In 1999 version 2 was released under the Q Public License, which was a free software license but not GPL-compatible. Then in 2000 version 2.2 was released under the GPL, and the Harmony endeavor ended.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  It's so not relevant. All the Linux desktop wars happened when Qt was already GPL, including Gnome, Gnome 3, KDE 4 and Unity. It was already GPL for almost a decade when the described events happened.
  - jraph 3y ago
    Again, I was speaking about Gnome's creation, which was first released in 1999, before Qt was freed, and started in 1997, 3 years before this and a few months after KDE's first release.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    It's relevant to the reasons for the creation Gnome. Gnome was very specifically created before that and the whole ruckus over that was if anything one of the big drivers behind the GPL release of Qt. The flamewars over this at the time were epic. Had Qt already been GPL'd, the chances of Gnome taking off would have been far smaller - though there were other differences as well, the GPL issue was by far the most prominent.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Gnome 3 and KDE 4 are "modern history" compared to the events we describe. Back then (way before those release) KDE was less free than Gnome.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lproven 3y ago
> It was GPL licenced It wasn't. That was the point here. You do not know your hoitory well enough to comment.
kriberg 3y ago
Qt didn't start out as GPL. It's even in the article.
jraph 3y ago
(A)GPL happens to be my favorite license, but even if I meant what you said, calling this Orwellian would be a bit much, if not outright off-topic, don't you think? I'm all for using the definitions correctly, but people can make mistakes and deserve to be answered gently.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  I remember GNOME fan base carrying this "freedom is slavery" narrative way into 2010s.
  - jraph 3y ago
    What do you mean? Do you have pointers? What freedom are you speaking about? Doesn't ring a bell. The only related thing I can think of is the argument that permissive free software license lets people build proprietary software on top of the licensed work, but the argument is not surprising and it's still true. I also don't remember slavery being mentioned. That would be a bit much. Now I can't manage to link this matter of fact with the discussion, KDE and GNOME both being GPL software.
  - DonHopkins 3y ago
    "Linux is only free if your time is worthless."
    - jraph 3y ago
      How is that relevant to the current discussion? Besides, I hate this sentence. It is very wrong, or true for any OS, whichever you prefer, and I'm seeing it more and more often. This kind of falsehoods doesn't need to be spread like this. Linux just doesn't get in my way and it has just worked for how I've been using my computer for years. To the contrary, the desktop environment and tools it lets me use are very efficient for me.

That's not true. It was first released under the Qt Free Edition License, which was nonfree. Harmony was started in that time. In 1999 version 2 was released under the Q Public License, which was a free software license but not GPL-compatible. Then in 2000 version 2.2 was released under the GPL, and the Harmony endeavor ended.

thriftwy 3y ago
It's so not relevant. All the Linux desktop wars happened when Qt was already GPL, including Gnome, Gnome 3, KDE 4 and Unity. It was already GPL for almost a decade when the described events happened.
- jraph 3y ago
  Again, I was speaking about Gnome's creation, which was first released in 1999, before Qt was freed, and started in 1997, 3 years before this and a few months after KDE's first release.
- vidarh 3y ago
  It's relevant to the reasons for the creation Gnome. Gnome was very specifically created before that and the whole ruckus over that was if anything one of the big drivers behind the GPL release of Qt. The flamewars over this at the time were epic. Had Qt already been GPL'd, the chances of Gnome taking off would have been far smaller - though there were other differences as well, the GPL issue was by far the most prominent.
- coldtea 3y ago
  Gnome 3 and KDE 4 are "modern history" compared to the events we describe. Back then (way before those release) KDE was less free than Gnome.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lproven 3y ago

> It was GPL licenced It wasn't. That was the point here. You do not know your hoitory well enough to comment.

kriberg 3y ago

Qt didn't start out as GPL. It's even in the article.

jraph 3y ago

(A)GPL happens to be my favorite license, but even if I meant what you said, calling this Orwellian would be a bit much, if not outright off-topic, don't you think? I'm all for using the definitions correctly, but people can make mistakes and deserve to be answered gently.

thriftwy 3y ago
I remember GNOME fan base carrying this "freedom is slavery" narrative way into 2010s.
- jraph 3y ago
  What do you mean? Do you have pointers? What freedom are you speaking about? Doesn't ring a bell. The only related thing I can think of is the argument that permissive free software license lets people build proprietary software on top of the licensed work, but the argument is not surprising and it's still true. I also don't remember slavery being mentioned. That would be a bit much. Now I can't manage to link this matter of fact with the discussion, KDE and GNOME both being GPL software.
- DonHopkins 3y ago
  "Linux is only free if your time is worthless."
  - jraph 3y ago
    How is that relevant to the current discussion? Besides, I hate this sentence. It is very wrong, or true for any OS, whichever you prefer, and I'm seeing it more and more often. This kind of falsehoods doesn't need to be spread like this. Linux just doesn't get in my way and it has just worked for how I've been using my computer for years. To the contrary, the desktop environment and tools it lets me use are very efficient for me.