Roy Schestowitz wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Let's Move FOSS to Its Logical Conclusion
,----[ Quote ]
| The most obvious trouble with these viewpoints is that they are
| short-sighted, even in their own terms. The idea that focusing on quality and
| ignoring licenses is the best policy is disproved by the well-known story of
| how Linus Torvalds chose BitKeeper, and pieces of proprietary versioning
| software for kernel development, only to have to scramble for a replacement
| when the free version suddenly became unavailable. The same vulnerability is
| present in software that is simply gratis. The fact that a change in license
| hasn't happened yet with a particular piece of software is no guarantee that
| it won't.
I can't say I understand all the licensing issues surrounding Qt, but I
find the dual approach to be troubling. My guess is that the FUD about
Qt's licensing is a big hindrance to progress in building cross-platform
apps---probably one of the biggest such hindrances. It seems like such
a tragedy mainly because Qt is supposed to be the best-designed package
for making cross-platform GUIs. Nokia claims they want "Qt everywhere",
but I think the best way to make that happen would be to introduce the
possibility to fork Qt.
`----
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3773286/Lets+Move+FOSS+to+Its+Logical+Conclusion.htm
|
|
