Qt is available under a copyleft and a non-copyleft license. The non-GPL users fund the GPL development with their money. Just like x264 and a number of other projects.
So your statement is a half-truth, as usual.
In the interest of disclosure. I am a MonkeySquare board member (an organization that promotes .NET and Open Source) and I play a part in all 3 of the applications mentioned plus a few others, having arranged Hackfests, done minor development, bug triaging, support, documentation, translations and other assorted tasks to assist them.
Also could you kindly refrain from insulting our development platform, we are regular people just like you. We make our technical decisions such as usage of Mono because it benefits the application, its developers and ultimately its users. No developer involved with any of the projects mentioned gain a penny from working on them and do so in their sparetime, it is a labor of love by some really nice people - please lay off your unconstructive hatred.
BTW gnome have a pragmatic written policy.
KDE is shit compared to this.
Last edited by funkSTAR; 02-22-2013 at 09:28 AM.
Last edited by Pawlerson; 02-22-2013 at 09:45 AM.
You are really out of your mind. Qt started as a commercial, closed product which has only ever become more open, never less. The licenses have become more free, and the governance has become more open and run by the community.
It is a shining example of high-quality software made free. It is what Free Software is about. Turning the best-in-class software into Free Software so everybody benefits. It is closed software taken over by the community, with a business model which ensures that it keeps getting better and remains free.
On the other hand, GNOME is essentially a RedHat project. I like RedHat, but this is their private desktop and they determine the direction. That's not open.
Integrate those changes in Qt make KDE developers life lot easier in fact, since they wont need to refactor KDElibs everytime a new Qt release is out and they won't have to port their small changes to every plataform Qt support so KDE can work(kde for windows nightmare).
About your last trolling excuse, from digia developer site i quote "It is important to note that the contributor retains ownership of the contribution as the Qt Project does not require copyright assignment for contributions made to the Qt Project." which in english means Digia can use your code in the commercial distribution without get sued but in the LGPL version works as any LGPL project will and if KDE decides Digia slipped to the dark side they can instantly fork Qt-project as BSD/LGPL/GPL3/whatever-license-they-want and from that instant all new code can't be used by digia commercially without comply with the choosen license and ofc KDE will maintain Qt from that point on.
as i see it we get a company that get money from Qt that is forced to contribute back much of that money to make Qt better(so they can sell more) and all that work is forced to be dual licensed LGPL/commecial and in the case they get greedy we lost some developers(digia dev team) at worst, if you ask me that is a win/win situation.
before you troll back, the LGPL repositories can't be touched/deleted/evilized/destroyed/stealed/etc/etc/etc. by digia in any way since the copyleft forbid it, what you sign is only valid to allow your patches in the commercial version of Qt(as long as KDE don't pull the trigger) not to neglate your ownership or LGPL rights(which is not possible btw you ignorant).
so in resume don't rant about stuff you are not literate enough to properly understand and end only make yourself look really bad, if you wish to correct your ways wikipedia and google are free my friend.
His comment is aspirational, in the "I HOPE YOUR FREE SOFTWARE PROJECT FAILS BECAUSE I HATE IT" sense which is seen all the time in certain quarters (especially here on Phoronix)This makes funkStart's above comment wrong.
Assuming you mean "spit",I split at your idiotic development platform and you're not like me, because I won't ever sell myself or my projects to some proprietary crap companies like m$.
- Fuck you for having the gall to tell other developers what environments they are and are nor permitted to use. I might think Erlang is a moronic choice of framework to write software, but that doesn't give me the right to tell anyone that they're not allowed to use it
- It's not proprietary. You're just not smart enough to comprehend that. And if you're talking about tangential relationship via standards bodies, there's very little on your system that *can't* have the same charge levied at it. You use TCP/IP, right?