On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:37:37AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Lars is not sure that he agrees with such a change, since we may not > want to allow the use of LyX under a non-free toolkit and OS (Lars, > correct me if I'm wrong). I am not sure where I stand myself.
Same for me. Am I correct in assuming that the 'problem' is the _distribution_ of the pre-compiled binary but not creating and using such a thing privately? If not, ignore the rest of this post. If so, an obvious solution would be to provide detailed instructions how to get a native Windows/Qt binary (starting from downloading the sources, development tools etc ...) I understand that this is a major pain for the user, but this is a one-time-activity and he will be able to use it as long as he wants. > Ruurd's port is certainly very useful for the users, but the moral > issue is important too. Indeed. To Ruurd's message: > I'd be a pity if a solution that is technically superior would not be > used. It is my understanding that the native port _can_ be _used_. If so, this is not a valid point. > The use of a non-free library gives rise to a lot of practical > issues like availability, bug-fixing etc. Those can be overcome. We do > have to appreciate the fact that Trolltech cannot make enough money on > service alone, and has to sell a product to stay alive. Moreover, they > have made a very big contribution to the open-source world. I have no political or religious problems whatsoever with Trolltech's business strategy. In fact, I appreciate what they are doing. > As for support of a non-free os: There's a difference between supporting > the OS as such and supporting applications that run on the OS. Now we are coming to the crucial point. Applications _are_ critical. Guess why "Linux is not 'ready' as long as it can't read/write .doc". It's all about applications. > It's OK to try to evangelise an open source OS by keeping a few killer > apps tied to that OS. However, not everybody has a choice, and most > people don't have a distant chance in influencing somebody else's choice. I don't see this as critical. First of all, some people have the choice, some would have it if they asked and some simply think they don't have one. Latest Knoppix comes with LyX for instance. Providing these people with an easy way out (i.e. simply using pre-cooked native LyX) does not create incentives to try harder. > Anyway, the same applies to the cygwin port. More use of open source > software, still on a non-free OS. Virtually all open source 'flagship' > applications have a win32 port, and I believe that's a very good thing. Not distributing the Win32 port does not mean there isn't one. > Consequenly, it more or less revolves around the use of a non-free > library. No. It's all about using a non-free OS. If Qt was non-free for *BSD you'd get my 'go' for a licence change to allow linking there at the moment you ask. > It is highly unlikely anyone will ever create another frontend > that is based on a cross-platform toolkit. It would not be needed IMNSO. - Well, maybe my objections are just based on some nasty thought of retaliation. It's about ten years now that I have to adjust the way I work to make people using "the industry standard" happy. People requiring an application to run on NT, doing the actual tests on Win98 and blaming me for faults caused by their "standard setup". People providing documentation as .doc only without giving all necessary fonts as it "works" on their "standard setup". People telling me that I am stupid to use *nix, as this could not even get trivial things like "reading documentation" right. People telling me that I am stupid using *nix as there aren't any applications available... Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
