On Wed, Feb 11, 1998 at 12:26:16AM -0500, Aron Griffis wrote:
> On 26 Jan 1998, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>
> > The GNOME project (http://www.gnome.org) aims at providing a
> > completely freely redistributable desktop environment for Unix systems
> > (unlike KDE which is based on the non-free Qt libs).
>
> This is such a bogus argument. It's unfortunate that the sole driving
> reason for GNOME over KDE is faulty. Qt is free for developing free
> software. If you want to develop software for profit, you purchase the
> commercial license. Is that so hard?
>
> I don't mean to offend anyone with this response, but I find it hard to
> believe TrollTech isn't at all offended by the misleading claim made by
> GNOME-supporters that Qt is not free, including the GNOME web-pages (last
> time I checked).
>
> KDE is free and it works beautifully.
Just in case you really don't understand what the GNOME people are
thinking (if you understand but disagree, then the above is a pretty
misleading statement without clarification):
The two of you are using the word "free" in different senses. Qt is
"gratis" for noncommercial use, but not "libre". Gtk is free like
free speech; Qt is free like free beer. Gtk is open-source software,
Qt is visible-source software (but not open-source).
If what you want is gratis software, then Qt is just fine.
For further clarification, see:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
http://sagan.earthspace.net/~esr/open-source.html
http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html
Feel free to e-mail me directly or post to gnu.misc.discuss.
-Sumner
-- rage, rage against the dying of the light- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu