Very Computer

Quote:> I am working in an avionics lab for a large aerospace research
> project. For both intellectual property and security reasons, we are
> currently not releasing source code except to our subcontractors. Thus
> we can use LGPL'd but not GPL'd libraries. I think you find there are
> many other organizations that have some additional intellectual
> property to protect besides the software itself and thus can't release
> sources. You'd better believe Sun and HP took this into account in
> making their decision to standardize on Gtk/Gnome.

That is why GPL is valid for programs for general distribution in many
cases; but GPL is inappropriate for libraries and "toolkits" or code
generates but tools like flex, or bison that need to be linked into programs
for use.

No, youre basicly saying that a company that sells software should not have
to pay for the tools they use.  Thats fine, but it the LGPL is used there
is no need for contribution. If the GPL is used then contributions are
"automaticcly" made and a developer can by buying a licence still make
closed source applications (remenber that the GPL is not the copyright
holder) - everybody is happy with the GPL.. with the LGPL thats different.

I can understand that a large system - lets say Linux itself - could not be
based on the GPL. It would simply be to complex for a company to find and
pay all copyright holders :-)

If  KDE libs are LGPL'ed would someone releasing commercial software for
KDE and only linking directly to those libs still have to acquire a licence
from QT??

Quote:> >If you want to release closed source software then you better pay for the
> >tools you use.

> If you use Qt/KDE yes. If you use Gtk/Gnome, no.

> I am working in an avionics lab for a large aerospace research
> project. For both intellectual property and security reasons, we are
> currently not releasing source code except to our subcontractors. Thus
> we can use LGPL'd but not GPL'd libraries. I think you find there are
> many other organizations that have some additional intellectual
> property to protect besides the software itself and thus can't release
> sources. You'd better believe Sun and HP took this into account in
> making their decision to standardize on Gtk/Gnome.

Are you sure of this?As i understand it then there is no need to release
any GPL code if the application is not distributed /sold. You could write
code for use at your company based on GPL code and not have to release any
code if the could was not distributed outside this entity.
But since you guys are doing money with it then its fair that you have to
pay for the tools you use. You would like these tools and the documentation
to be of the highest quality? Nobody ever picks on QT for quality reasons
but the same cannot be said of GTK+. Guess why.

Quote:> >And maybe when its a bit more stable.

> I find that my own apps using Gtk widgets and some Gnome Widgets are
> quite stable. I don't use the overall integreted Gnome Desktop.

Cant say anything thing about it since the only programmin i ever made with
GTK was no more than experiments.
I do use some GTK and Gnome apps and i find that these crash more than
applications based on KDE and QT (but lots of QT based still crash on me)

Cheers