> > May I add that, without RMS 'lauching' the GNOME project and harassing
> > TrollTech, Qt would probably never have been licenced under the GPL ?
>
> Had the license not changed Qt would have been replaced by Harmony.
Unlike the earlier arguments, there is a technical component to this
argument. Trying to emulate a non-free library (or OS) is considerably
harder than building something from scratch, where you have the freedom
to tweak interfaces as needed. You have problems with:
-- being compatible with bugs aka 'features' ("I meant to do that")
-- being compatible with changing/moving upgrades/new versions
-- avoiding nearly identical code to implement nearly identical
algorithms. (i.e. avoiding 'IP theft')
-- no clear roadmap on how to innovate in the emulating library
Had the license not changed on Qt, Harmony still would have been a chain
around the ankle, at least until the point where the majority of KDE
developers started coding/being compatible with Harmony instead of Qt.
In terms of schedule risk and technology risk, reinventing everything,
a la Gnome was the safer bet (based on what I know about the problem).
--linas
--
pub 1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <linas linas org>
PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984 3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933
Attachment:
pgpJgk2sAZJdM.pgp
Description: PGP signature