On Thu, 3 Aug 2000 19:01:01 +0200, Patricia Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Of course not -- but as soon as you take GPLed code from KDE and
>include it in your code, you agree with that it is OK that KDE is
>GPLed and that there is no licencing problem.
KDE can release its code under any lice
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:12:07 -0400 , "Fan, Laurel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Maybe so. But another issue is that KDE has incorporated a lot of
>non-KDE-written GPL'd code, without asking the authors if it was ok
>to link their code with Qt. In essence, forcing their controversial
>interpretatio
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 22:44:14 -0400, Dan Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I understand, but I'm from the "throw the little kid into the pool"
>if they sink jump in and rescue them, if the float great. :)
That doesn't work when you're talking about a business client who
doesn't care about learning
- Original Message -
From: Caitlyn M. Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Dan Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [techtalk] KDE / OpenSource
> That doesn't work in the business world, unfortunately
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 10:41:13PM -0400, Caitlyn M. Martin wrote:
> > Gnome 2.0 will have Evolution, the Outlook clone.
>
> I *hate* Outlook, so that isn't likely to sell me on Gnome :) I
> loved PMMail, so having something that functions a *lot* like that
> does helps sell me on KDE2 :) The who
Hi, Dan,
>
> I understand, but I'm from the "throw the little kid into the pool" if
> they sink jump in and rescue them, if the float great. :)
That doesn't work in the business world, unfortunately. People would
probably learn better and more quickly if it did.
I had the rug pulled out from
Patricia Jung, [EMAIL PROTECTED], said:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 10:17:41AM -0400, Fan, Laurel wrote:
> > So, someone is working for a company on a closed source product...
> > and not getting paid? I don't know what that convinces me of.
> Why shouldn't he get paid for his job? What I was menti
> > > And the GNOME project hast included some of the KDE code, thus, the
> > > relevant programs obviously are part of a chain reaction.
> >
> > No, you do not need permission to link GPLed (KDE) code against GPLed
> > (Gnome) code.
>
> Of course not -- but as soon as you take GPLed code from
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 11:31:35AM -0500, joey tsai wrote:
> > And the GNOME project hast included some of the KDE code, thus, the relevant
> > programs obviously are part of a chain reaction.
>
> No, you do not need permission to link GPLed (KDE) code against GPLed (Gnome)
> code.
Of course n
> > Maybe so. But another issue is that KDE has incorporated a lot of
> > non-KDE-written GPL'd code, without asking the authors if it was ok to link
> > their code with Qt. In essence, forcing their controversial interpretation
> > of the GPL on other peoples' "products".
> And the GNOME proje
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 10:12:07AM -0400, Fan, Laurel wrote:
>
> Maybe so. But another issue is that KDE has incorporated a lot of
> non-KDE-written GPL'd code, without asking the authors if it was ok
> to link their code with Qt. In essence, forcing their controversial
> interpretation of the
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 10:17:41AM -0400, Fan, Laurel wrote:
> So, someone is working for a company on a closed source product...
> and not getting paid? I don't know what that convinces me of.
Why shouldn't he get paid for his job? What I was mentioning was that
no one paid him to leave harmony
BTW if any of you truly feel that QT isn't "free enough"...
the harmony project (last updated {unless there is another location I
don't know about} March 26,1999)
/"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X - NO HTML
Patricia Jung, [EMAIL PROTECTED], said:
> Harmony died the day one of its core developers decided to do the real
> thing and join Trolltech to develop Qt. No one asked him to change his
> mind, no one payed for that -- and even if he's a single person: Isn't
> it that -- if anything -- convincin
Caitlyn M. Martin, [EMAIL PROTECTED], said:
> Thank you for the clarification. The fact is, the KDE people and
TrollTech
> both say it's fine to distribute it. Maybe they need to fine-tune their
> license, but really, it's their call what to do with their
> product, isn't it?
Maybe so. But
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 10:45:11PM -0500, joey tsai wrote:
> the Harmony project. Unfortunately, I think Harmony's pretty much dead.
Harmony died the day one of its core developers decided to do the real
thing and join Trolltech to develop Qt. No one asked him to change his
mind, no one payed fo
This is the situation between KDE and QT, as interpreted by Debian.
Troll Tech's QT library can be redistributed QT if it's unchanged and along with
the QT license.
However, KDE, is under GPL. It states that if you link GPLed KDE code against
the QT library and distribute it, you must distribut
Hello Caitlyn (again :)
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 10:13:23PM -0400, Caitlyn M. Martin wrote:
> In order to sell to this client, I had to make Linux
> non-threatening, which I sucessfully did. So... the solution?
> Caldera OpenLinux eDesktop 2.4 and KDE/kwm. I realize that combo
> makes some puri
Hi, Dan
>
> Make sure to try Gnome 1.2, (use sawfish not E) if you have not
> already. However when comparing Gnome and KDE, they are very
> diffrent. My opinion about both products that they are bloated, and
> designed to hold a newbie's hand. Gnome does less of this, than KDE.
Please underst
Hi Caitlyn,
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 04:59:13PM -0400, Caitlyn M. Martin wrote:
> > KDE is NOT free software! GNOME/HELIX IS!
>
> I completely disagree. So does ESR, for that matter. KDE does meet the
> Open Source definition, and I happen to accept ESR's opinion on it.
Free is a terrible wo
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Caitlyn M. Martin wrote:
> > KDE is NOT free software! GNOME/HELIX IS!
>
> Now, if you are saying the LGPL is not "Free" as defined by Richard
> Sta1lman, then perhaps you are correct. The fact that I often disagree with
> his point of view may have something to do with
Hi,
> KDE is NOT free software! GNOME/HELIX IS!
I completely disagree. So does ESR, for that matter. KDE does meet the
Open Source definition, and I happen to accept ESR's opinion on it.
Now, if you are saying the LGPL is not "Free" as defined by Richard
Sta1lman, then perhaps you are corr
22 matches
Mail list logo
