Nokia to hold Trolltech/QT toolkit hostage?

[izanbardprince]

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jun2008/gb20080612_288518.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index _global+business

---------

According to Nokia, Linux developers and users need to be..."educated" about how the market works:

Jaaksi, Nokia's vice president of software and head of the Finnish handset manufacturer's open-source operations, said: "We want to educate open-source developers. There are certain business rules [developers] need to obey, such as DRM, IPR [intellectual property rights], SIM locks and subsidised business models."

Seems like just another CEO/gasbag with empty words, until later in the article:
---
The manufacturer has one other significant investment in open source, however: the software maker Trolltech, Nokia's purchase of which finally went through in the last few days. Trolltech makes Qt, a graphical toolkit that is used in the KDE Linux desktop environment and in much commercial software and is an apparently non-participatory member in the LiMo Foundation.
---

So now we have a company that's obviously hostile towards Linux and the GPL, that happens to have purchased a company that makes the QT toolkit, which is licensed under the GPL.

So my question has to be, what is the future of KDE, should Trolltech decide to relicense QT?

Do you suppose that KDE would fork it and maintain it themselves, or switch to GTK+ or something for future versions of KDE?

[frup]

I didn't read the article but I don't see that as being hostile but maybe being a different perspective on some core issues of freedom such as DRM etc.

It's a wait and see type thing and to me it doesn't look as scary as something like the Novell/ms patent deal... so far nothing to bad has happened of that yet (well it won't for another 4 years or so will it :P)

I will remain neutral on this until I see more. It's 2 am here, I'm going to be and I have bookmarked the article to read tomorrow, I hope it's worth it.

[geoken]

I think the worst case scenario is that Nokia tries to change the licsense on QT which would require QT to be forked.

Apparently Trolltech and KDE signed a contract a while back saying that if anything ever happened to the QT license, the code will be forked and KDE will retain full use of everyhting up to that point. From there, KDE would go on to develop their version of QT however they see fit, while the owners of QT would do the same with theirs.

Realistically I don't see it happening because KDE apps add a lot of viability to QT.

[bruce89]

Apparently Trolltech and KDE signed a contract a while back saying that if anything ever happened to the QT license, the code will be forked and KDE will retain full use of everyhting up to that point. From there, KDE would go on to develop their version of QT however they see fit, while the owners of QT would do the same with theirs.

If there was no FOSS QT made available for over 2 years, it has to be released under a BSD licence.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Great, well looks like GTK has got its win back.
Its crap like this that made GTK possible.

[bruce89]

Great, well looks like GTK has got its win back.
Its crap like this that made GTK possible.

GTK+ was invented because QT was non-free at the time. The GNU project then founded GNOME to write a DE which didn't rely on non-free technology. Since then, QT was made quasi-free (only for free projects under specific licences).

[SunnyRabbiera]

GTK+ was invented because QT was non-free at the time. The GNU project then founded GNOME to write a DE which didn't rely on non-free technology. Since then, QT was made quasi-free (only for free projects under specific licences).

well because of this, QT is probably going to be non free again.
So its gnome or XFCE for all of us.

[bruce89]

well because of this, QT is probably going to be non free again.
So its gnome or XFCE for all of us.

If they were to close it, the KDE Free QT thingy would mean that QT would have to be released under the BSD licence. Of course, that doesn't stop Nokia from improving the non-free one further and having ABI incompatibility between the non-free version and the BSD one.

[jomiolto]

well because of this, QT is probably going to be non free again.
So its gnome or XFCE for all of us.

Nope, Qt can never be made non-free. "This led to the creation of the KDE Free Qt foundation, which guarantees that Qt would fall under a BSD-style license should no free software/open source version of Qt be released during 12 months." (from Wikipedia)

And I'm glad it won't, because from my limited programming experience with the toolkits, Qt is much more advanced than Gtk.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Well hey I wont object to that bit, but once again the world turns against linux just when it seemed to be our time.


Nope, Qt can never be made non-free. "This led to the creation of the KDE Free Qt foundation, which guarantees that Qt would fall under a BSD-style license should no free software/open source version of Qt be released during 12 months." (from Wikipedia)

And I'm glad it won't, because from my limited programming experience with the toolkits, Qt is much more advanced than Gtk.
yes but main the license would be held by yet another anti linux company.
So now I guess we not only have to wipe mono off of gnome, we have to wipe QT from KDE...
Major setbacks.

[bruce89]

And I'm glad it won't, because from my limited programming experience with the toolkits, Qt is much more advanced than Gtk.

Considering that QT has a largish company behind it, it's quite nice that GTK+ is still around.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Considering that QT has a largish company behind it, it's quite nice that GTK+ is still around.

yeh so when we are threatened like this we could go over to GTK...

[utUtu]

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jun2008/gb20080612_288518.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index _global+business

---------

According to Nokia, Linux developers and users need to be..."educated" about how the market works:

Jaaksi, Nokia's vice president of software and head of the Finnish handset manufacturer's open-source operations, said: "We want to educate open-source developers. There are certain business rules [developers] need to obey, such as DRM, IPR [intellectual property rights], SIM locks and subsidised business models."



Maybe it's time we consumers 'educate' Nokia by not buying their handsets. It so happen I was planning to get one, so I won't now.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Maybe it's time we consumers 'educate' Nokia by not buying their handsets. It so happen I was planning to get one, so I won't now.

Right, a boycott of Nokia is a good idea.
Hello Moto?

[bruce89]

People have to realise that companies want the most money possible, so it's no wonder they go on about how great DRM etc. is. I couldn't care less as I don't care for music.

Nokia is at least using FOSS technology, but "boycots" by a small number of misinformed people is not going to make any difference.

[SunnyRabbiera]

People have to realise that companies want the most money possible, so it's no wonder they go on about how great DRM etc. is. I couldn't care less as I don't care for music.

Nokia is at least using FOSS technology, but "boycots" by a small number of misinformed people is not going to make any difference.

yes but they use that technology for the wrong reasons.
I say aim for the heart.

[bruce89]

yes but they use that technology for the wrong reasons.
I say aim for the heart.

We all know how Maemo is full of DRM...

[SunnyRabbiera]

well if it isnt now it will be, then of course if we fork QT they will have lawyers after us and its back to square one...
I say stop using QT, stop buying Nokia and let freedom ring.

[bruce89]

If there is one thing FOSS people like, it's conspiracies.

Nokia wouldn't be so bloody stupid.

[luca.b]

It's Qt, not QT. And Qt is triple licensed, two of those being FOSS.

[bruce89]

It's Qt, not QT. And Qt is triple licensed, two of those being FOSS.

Alright, I demand everyone say it's GTK+, not GTK or Gtk.

[geoken]

yes but main the license would be held by yet another anti linux company.
So now I guess we not only have to wipe mono off of gnome, we have to wipe QT from KDE...
Major setbacks.

There would be no such thing as a "main license". Basically QT would become fully open source. KDE could take that source and do whatever they want with it. Nokia could also take that source and do whatever they wanted with it. No one would have any control over what the other party could do with that source.

Basically, KDE would be in the exact same position as gnome. They would have a fully open source tool kit which they would develop of their own accord.

[geoken]

well if it isnt now it will be, then of course if we fork QT they will have lawyers after us and its back to square one...


Send lawyers after us for what? Forking something under a BSD-like license?

[bruce89]

There would be no such thing as a "main license". Basically QT would become fully open source. KDE could take that source and do whatever they want with it. Nokia could also take that source and do whatever they wanted with it. No one would have any control over what the other party could do with that source.

Therein lies the problem. In other words, free and non-free Qt could become ABI incompatible.

[karellen]

for Nokia the whole thing is just a business. with the goal to make money. and you can't make money when you give to the competition the source code of your mobile phones software. that's all
anyway, I like KDE and I'd be using it as long as it's free (not necessarily open source, but freeware). nevertheless, a fork is always possible so I see no problem in this. choices, plenty of them
:)

[bruce89]

I like KDE and I'd be using it as long as it's free (not necessarily open source, but freeware). nevertheless, a fork is always possible so I see no problem in this. choices, plenty of them
:)

It's proper FOSS, no denying it.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Send lawyers after us for what? Forking something under a BSD-like license?

well Nokia could esily come after us for using Qt "without their permission"
they bought out trolltech giving them full access to do so.

[geoken]

Therein lies the problem. In other words, free and non-free Qt could become ABI incompatible.

I'm not denying that, but that would have little to no effect on KDE itself. It certainly wouldn't initiate any of the legal problems Sunny is insinuating.

If that happend it would be to the detriment of Nokia. Who would people develop for, the closed source non-free Nokia qt or the open source KDE qt. It would basically cause Nokia's version of qt to become irrelevant.

[geoken]

well Nokia could esily come after us for using Qt "without their permission"
they bought out trolltech giving them full access to do so.

No they couldn't. They have contracts gauranteeing they can't.

[bruce89]

If that happend it would be to the detriment of Nokia. Who would people develop for, the closed source non-free Nokia qt or the open source KDE qt. It would basically cause Nokia's version of qt to become irrelevant.

You forget a lot of companies use Qt for commercial products, so the FOSS one would be more likely to snuff it.

I don't think Nokia are doing or are going to do anything dodgy.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I'm not denying that, but that would have little to no effect on KDE itself. It certainly wouldn't initiate any of the legal problems Sunny is insinuating.

yes but its obvious we are dealing with a market that hates us.
If Nokia had the option they could sue everyone using Qt under a free license, and you will bet their lawyers will be filling up their pockets.
Its greed that rules this world people, to think that Nokia wont sue us is probably very foolish.
Its just another bloody money grabbing company that steals a open technology and uses it for their own gain and us not being able to do anything about it.

[bruce89]

yes but its obvious we are dealing with a market that hates us.
If Nokia had the option they could sue everyone using Qt under a free license, and you will bet their lawyers will be filling up their pockets.
Its greed that rules this world people, to think that Nokia wont sue us is probably very foolish.
Its just another bloody money grabbing company that steals a open technology and uses it for their own gain and us not being able to do anything about it.

I thought companies had to make money? Even Canonical should do.

Have Trolltech been "filling their pockets"? Why should things be any different now?

[SunnyRabbiera]

I thought companies had to make money? Even Canonical should do.

Have Trolltech been "filling their pockets"? Why should things be any different now?


Yes but not at the cost of our freedom.
and trolltech is owned by nokia.
We would not be having this argument if it wasnt

[karellen]

yes but its obvious we are dealing with a market that hates us.
If Nokia had the option they could sue everyone using Qt under a free license, and you will bet their lawyers will be filling up their pockets.
Its greed that rules this world people, to think that Nokia wont sue us is probably very foolish.
Its just another bloody money grabbing company that steals a open technology and uses it for their own gain and us not being able to do anything about it.

aren't you a little paranoid about the world hating/trying to destroy the FOSS movement? :confused:

[SunnyRabbiera]

aren't you a little paranoid about the world hating/trying to destroy the FOSS movement? :confused:

well it seems to be the case.
We were ensured that when Novell and Microsoft made their deal, Novell would treat other linux distros with respect but now we get FUD.
We were ensured that nothing was to be changed when nokia bought out trolltech, but now we get this.
Paranoia?
Maybe, but I am voicing my concerns nonetheless.

[geoken]

You forget a lot of companies use Qt for commercial products, so the FOSS one would be more likely to snuff it.


That was actually part of my point. If Qt went full open source, why would companies like Opera continue to license it from Nokia when they could just grab the BSD version? This would obviously be a bad situation for Nokia.

[bruce89]

That was actually part of my point. If Qt went full open source, why would companies like Opera continue to license it from Nokia when they could just grab the BSD version? This would obviously be a bad situation for Nokia.

Companies like getting "support".

[geoken]

well it seems to be the case.
We were ensured that when Novell and Microsoft made their deal, Novell would treat other linux distros with respect but now we get FUD.
We were ensured that nothing was to be changed when nokia bought out trolltech, but now we get this.
Paranoia?
Maybe, but I am voicing my concerns nonetheless.

Don't you think it's kind of a stretch to base your entire opinion on one situation, and a pretty unrelated situation at that?

[geoken]

Companies like getting "support".

Yeah, but they'll at least have the option to decline. In the past they had no choice, they had to pay trolltech.

If Qt forked, companies would at least have the choice and Nokia would be in a worse spot than when companies had no choice.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Don't you think it's kind of a stretch to base your entire opinion on one situation, and a pretty unrelated situation at that?

Well we heard this crap before from big companies, its bad enough we got microsoft after us now we might have another company on our butts.

[bruce89]

Yeah, but they'll at least have the option to decline. In the past they had no choice, they had to pay trolltech.

If Qt forked, companies would at least have the choice and Nokia would be in a worse spot than when companies had no choice.

Nokia don't use normal GCC, they got it from CodeSourcery. Support is pretty important.


[...]its bad enough we got microsoft after us [...]

Are they really?

[maniacmusician]

During the negotiations between Trolltech and Nokia, I believe it was made very clear that Qt's development model and licensing wouldn't change. If that's part of their contractual agreement, then Nokia can't turn it into something proprietary. Also, the Trolls (and I mean the actual programmers) are all avid FOSS enthusiasts.

Secondly, all this talk about Nokia suing people is complete nonsense. Whether they want to or not, they have absolutely no legal basis. Besides, they really have no reason to sue people.

[Colonel Kilkenny]

During the negotiations between Trolltech and Nokia, I believe it was made very clear that Qt's development model and licensing wouldn't change. If that's part of their contractual agreement, then Nokia can't turn it into something proprietary. Also, the Trolls (and I mean the actual programmers) are all avid FOSS enthusiasts.

Secondly, all this talk about Nokia suing people is complete nonsense. Whether they want to or not, they have absolutely no legal basis. Besides, they really have no reason to sue people.

I couldn't agree more with this post.

And someone already suggested that we should somehow support Motorola and boycott Nokia...
I'm not sure what Motorola has done but I'm pretty damn sure it's nothing compared to Nokia which is probably one of the biggest companies when it comes to open source (WebKit, Summer of Code projects, linux kernel and the list could go on and on...).

And Mr. Jaaksi has a blog, http://jaaksi.blogspot.com/ , and posts imho prove that this thread is totally useless and FUD.

[Erunno]

I really don't understand this paranoia. Even without the statement from Trolltech to release Qt under a BSD-like license if no releasee of the free variant is made for a specific amout of time or the company goes bancrupt there's one undeniable fact:

Qt is released and distributed under the GPL.

Neither Trolltech nor Nokia can revoke this licensing terms, they'd have to get a court to declare the GPL invalid and they would have to do this in each country separately. All Nokia can do is to release the next version (be it minor or major) under a non-free license, but that wouldn't affect the free versions at all. Would it hurt KDE? You bet. Trolltech takes a huge burden of KDE by developing the toolkit commercially. KDE gets an inredible foundation and can tackle technical problems other than toolkit development. Finding enough skilled developers to continue the development of the last free Qt version would be problematic, but not impossible although it would surely slow down feature development for some time.

So, sit back and thank comrade Stallman for the protection of the GPL. ;-)

[samjh]

yes but its obvious we are dealing with a market that hates us.
If Nokia had the option they could sue everyone using Qt under a free license, and you will bet their lawyers will be filling up their pockets.
Its greed that rules this world people, to think that Nokia wont sue us is probably very foolish.
Its just another bloody money grabbing company that steals a open technology and uses it for their own gain and us not being able to do anything about it.
It seems you don't quite understand the situation.

Trolltech and the KDE Foundation have an agreement so that the last GPL release of Qt would be re-licensed under a BSD-like license if no FOSS version of Qt is released for 12 months.

Qt has been released under GPL since version 4.0. So anyone using Qt 4.0 and later versions under the requirements of GPL is completely safe. Nokia can't do anything to them or their projects. They have no legal grounds to do so, and any legal challenge would be a huge waste of money and time.

Just because Nokia has bought Trolltech, doesn't mean that Nokia can arbitrarily change the licensing agreements for already-released versions of Qt. They have every right to change FUTURE versions, but changes to PAST versions would be utterly ineffective.

[SunnyRabbiera]

But that can still mean that Qt5 could be bogged down with DRM and endless EULA's...
Whats to stop them ffrom doing that?
Look I really dont like it when big companies come into open source project and lock it down... we all saw what happened with SCO

[karellen]

But that can still mean that Qt5 could be bogged down with DRM and endless EULA's...
Whats to stop them ffrom doing that?
Look I really dont like it when big companies come into open source project and lock it down... we all saw what happened with SCO

yes, SCO went bankrupt ;)

[SunnyRabbiera]

yes, SCO went bankrupt ;)

yes but after many years trying to destroy everything we value.

[samjh]

But that can still mean that Qt5 could be bogged down with DRM and endless EULA's...They sure can make Qt 5 bogged down with DRM and endless EULAs.

But that has absolutely no bearing on the safe usage of existing Qt for FOSS projects.

Right now, we could put up a project to fork Qt 4.4 into a separate FOSS project named, (for example) FreeQ. It could be a very strong toolkit in its own right, with backing from some powerful corporate allies.

If that did happen, could Nokia do anything about it? No. As long as FreeQ abides by GPL, Nokia couldn't make a scratch on it.


Look I really dont like it when big companies come into open source project and lock it down... we all saw what happened with SCOConsidering that the Gnome desktop project is now largely funded by RedHat, Novell, and Sun, you might as well declare red-alert on Gnome too.

What I'm saying is you're imagining dangers that don't really exist. Even if there was any danger, it is so minute that we don't have anything to worry about.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Well both Redhat and Sun have shown to be beneficial to open source in the past, though novell is disputable.

[karellen]

Well both Redhat and Sun have shown to be beneficial to open source in the past, though novell is disputable.

and how about Evolution, Beagle, Gnome Control Center,Banshee, F-Spot, Kdepim, KNetworkManager, KNetworkManager, Kickoff, openSuse Build Service?
they seem pretty beneficial to me

[bruce89]

and how about Evolution, Beagle, Gnome Control Center,Banshee, F-Spot, Kdepim, KNetworkManager, KNetworkManager, Kickoff, openSuse Build Service?
they seem pretty beneficial to me

If it wasn't for Novell, GNOME wouldn't even exist (Miguel started it). Sure it was Ximian at the time, but oh well.

[karellen]

If it wasn't for Novell, GNOME wouldn't even exist (Miguel started it). Sure it was Ximian at the time, but oh well.

I know; others seem to consciously ignore this

[izanbardprince]

well if it isnt now it will be, then of course if we fork QT they will have lawyers after us and its back to square one...
I say stop using QT, stop buying Nokia and let freedom ring.

They can't have lawyers after you for forking the last version that was under the GPL, but this is where GNOME has an advantage, they don't have to rely on a company making subtle threats about the toolkit their entire project depends on, and from looking at KDE 4 so far, it looks like they already have their hands full without having to juggle developing their own copy of QT as well.

[jrusso2]

They can't have lawyers after you for forking the last version that was under the GPL, but this is where GNOME has an advantage, they don't have to rely on a company making subtle threats about the toolkit their entire project depends on, and from looking at KDE 4 so far, it looks like they already have their hands full without having to juggle developing their own copy of QT as well.

I would hate to lose KDE, I can't stand to use gnome, but I guess there is really no other alternative if something would happen to KDE.

[Methuselah]

If it wasn't for Novell, GNOME wouldn't even exist (Miguel started it). Sure it was Ximian at the time, but oh well.

AFIK, GNOME work was started in 1997 and Icaza's company was bought by Novell in 2003. IOW, I don't think Novell deserves credit for Gnome's existence.

[jrusso2]

AFIK, GNOME work was started in 1997 and Icaza's company was bought by Novell in 2003. IOW, I don't think Novell deserves credit for Gnome's existence.

That was gnome 1 and it was not very good. Novell may not be responsible for gnome's existence but they certainly have put a lot of money and development into making it usable.

[Methuselah]

That was gnome 1 and it was not very good. Novell may not be responsible for gnome's existence but they certainly have put a lot of money and development into making it usable.

Well, everything improves after its version 1.
GTK improved too and GNOME benefited from that.
I doubt it wouldn't have improved without Novell's involvement.

[PmDematagoda]

Well both Redhat and Sun have shown to be beneficial to open source in the past, though novell is disputable.

Sun doesn't have a clean record either because Sun used to go against Linux and Open-Source until recently. You want an example? Take a look at the MySQL hype after Sun purchased it which was pretty much similar to the present one with Nokia and Qt.

[shadylookin]

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jun2008/gb20080612_288518.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index _global+business

---------

According to Nokia, Linux developers and users need to be..."educated" about how the market works:

Jaaksi, Nokia's vice president of software and head of the Finnish handset manufacturer's open-source operations, said: "We want to educate open-source developers. There are certain business rules [developers] need to obey, such as DRM, IPR [intellectual property rights], SIM locks and subsidised business models."



Nokia's complaints don't make much sense to me. Open Source developers don't need DRM because it would be trivial to remove it from an application that releases the source. The GPL is able to exist solely because of IP/copyright laws. Open source applications have no need for sim locks. Open source developers would probably take any subsidies you're willing to give them:lolflag:

maybe they're under the false assumption that open source developer means being a pirate(who cracks DRM, doesn't respect IP, doesn't care about SIM locks, and who doesn't give a hoot about their business model). Otherwise their complaints just don't make any sense to me.

[kripkenstein]

I'm afraid there is plenty of room for Nokia to go 'hostile' towards us, even with the agreements about keeping Qt free.

For example, Nokia can continue to release Qt every 6 months, but with extremely minor changes, while meanwhile they come out with a new product, Nokia Qt+ Enterprise Edition, where they put 99% of their development efforts. The new product wouldn't be FOSS and KDE wouldn't benefit from it.

All the KDE people can do in this situation is fork the old Qt and maintain/improve it by themselves. This has two problems: first, it isn't clear that they have the manpower for that (but they might), and second they are incapable of changing the Qt license (that's how licensing works...). That means that we will never be able to write KDE apps using new FOSS licenses that we invent, for example, if the need for a GPL4 comes about, then we won't be able to use it for writing KDE apps. We will only be able to use the list of licenses that Qt currently supports, for all time. Sadly, changes to patent and copyright law may require new FOSS licenses, so not being able to adapt should the need arise is very worrying.

Ok, so that is the worst-case scenario. Will it happen? I don't know, maybe it isn't likely, but I don't trust Nokia blindly. We need to be prepared for such things so that FOSS doesn't collapse entirely if it happens. The best preparation of course is to support the alternative, GTK+, and GNOME, Xfce, etc.

[karellen]

we should wait and see how things evolve, not jump to radical conclusions like "boycott KDE/Qt is selling out/Nokia is malevolent"

[Erunno]

Well both Redhat and Sun have shown to be beneficial to open source in the past, though novell is disputable.

Could you please stop foaming at the mouth for just one second? Novell is only second to Red Hat when it comes to sponsored full-time developers who are working on various Linux/UNIX related projects. And no, it's not just the Mono-related ones. GNOME, KDE, Kernel, Compiz, OpenOffice.org, Samba and many other projects (http://en.opensuse.org/Novell_Supported_Projects) are actively supported by Novell money. So whenever you put on your tin-foil hat to write yet another of your rants against Novell you are very likely doing it so with the help of some Novell code.

Seriously, Linux would be a distinctly poorer desktop today without Novell's financial backing.

[Erunno]

.For example, Nokia can continue to release Qt every 6 months, but with extremely minor changes, while meanwhile they come out with a new product, Nokia Qt+ Enterprise Edition, where they put 99% of their development efforts. The new product wouldn't be FOSS and KDE wouldn't benefit from it.

It pretty much depends on how you interpret the phrases "important Release" and "corresponding version" in section 3 of the agreement between KDE e.V. and Trolltech (http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/images/agreement3.png). It could be argued that if the the free edition starts to diverge from the Nokia's closed source edition that (1) and (2) kicks in as the free edition wouldn't be a "corresponding" release anymore. But I'm not a lawyer so my opinion is probably moot :-/

[awakatanka]

He is talking about how the mobile market is working and that the open source dev people need to learn how that is working, In my eyes it is almost the same as hardware with locked in IPR (like he calls it). And he isn't talking about Qt, on phones they will put Qtopia and if you want to be negative you need to be negative about that part of Qt the Qtopia part.

At least Qt has a license where closed sources company's have to pay to use the toolkit and a part of that money flows back to developing Qt and open source, and GTK they can use without giving back anything.

I rather didn't see nokia in charge of Qt but i will see in the future if it was a smart move by trolltech.

[kripkenstein]

It pretty much depends on how you interpret the phrases "important Release" and "corresponding version" in section 3 of the agreement between KDE e.V. and Trolltech (http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/images/agreement3.png). It could be argued that if the the free edition starts to diverge from the Nokia's closed source edition that (1) and (2) kicks in as the free edition wouldn't be a "corresponding" release anymore. But I'm not a lawyer so my opinion is probably moot :-/
I think that yeah, you might argue that. But as you say, you're not a lawyer - and neither am I.

What'll happen is that if the issue is debatable and unclear - which it is, in the worse-case scenario mentioned - then Nokia will do whatever it wants, and I don't see the KDE people finding enough money to hire lawyers to sue Nokia, let alone expensive-enough lawyers to have a chance at winning such a lawsuit. Nokia is one of the largest companies in the world, KDE doesn't have any hope in such a battle. KDE therefore depends on Nokia's goodwill.

[maniacmusician]

In an open letter to the community following the acquisition announcement, Trolltech and Nokia both declared that development on Qt and Qtopia would continue as it currently does, and that even future versions would be released under the GPL. (link: http://trolltech.com/28012008/28012008-letter/view)

Sure, Nokia could fork Qt and change the license, but they could have done that without aqcuiring Trolltech. I think it's important to consider, firstly, that Trolltech has a huge commitment to the open source community. In view of the letter, it looks like keeping Qt development open and active is a part of the acquisition terms, and Nokia can't back out on that. Secondly, Nokia also has a history of supporting and fostering the growth of open source projects.

I can appreciate paranoia to an extent, but I think it's important to consider the facts before getting carried away, making accusations, and moving to "boycott" all products from a company that has been FOSS-friendly simply because of a statement made by one of the executives at said company.

[kripkenstein]

Sure, Nokia could fork Qt and change the license, but they could have done that without aqcuiring Trolltech.

No, they could not have done that. A fork can't change the license. I can't, for example, create an LGPL fork of Qt, nor a BSD fork of the Linux kernel, etc. etc. That is the whole purpose of licensing.


I think it's important to consider, firstly, that Trolltech has a huge commitment to the open source community.

That's true, but as a part of Nokia, this commitment and all of Trolltech's aspirations are secondary to Nokia's bottom line. I'm not saying that bottom line is anti-FOSS, but it's important to note that Trolltech no longer matters here, it's Nokia that is in charge.


I can appreciate paranoia to an extent, but I think it's important to consider the facts before getting carried away, making accusations, and moving to "boycott" all products from a company that has been FOSS-friendly simply because of a statement made by one of the executives at said company.
I agree that a boycott is jumping the gun. But caution is warranted.

[maniacmusician]

No, they could not have done that. A fork can't change the license. I can't, for example, create an LGPL fork of Qt, nor a BSD fork of the Linux kernel, etc. etc. That is the whole purpose of licensing.

[brain fart] my bad. Looks like I need to start getting more sleep before trying to think.

You're right about that, of course. The biggest reason I'm not worried is that it looks like keeping the license terms and development models seems to have been a contractual obligation of the acquisition, and something that both Nokia and Trolltech have committed to openly (the former part being the more legally relevant one).

Also, as I mentioned before, the large majority of this thread seems to be based on one comment made by one executive at Nokia. His opinions don't necessarily reflect that of all parties involved, and certainly can't overrule any contractual agreements.

[atomkarinca]

Sure, Nokia could fork Qt and change the license...

I thought GPLv2 prevented that.

[atomkarinca]

Also, as I mentioned before, the large majority of this thread seems to be based on one comment made by one executive at Nokia. His opinions don't necessarily reflect that of all parties involved, and certainly can't overrule any contractual agreements.

Ditto. I don't see any threat based on just this.

[jomiolto]

I thought GPLv2 prevented that.

No, it doesn't prevent the copyright holder from doing anything. If you own the copyright to something, you are free to do whatever you wish with it, including changing the license in the future. Only the already released versions are locked to the license they were released under.

So, Nokia can't change the licensing of already released versions of Qt, but as they are now the owner of TrollTech and Qt, they can do anything they wish with the future versions of Qt. There is of course the already mentioned contract with the KDE Free Qt foundation, which guarantees that the future versions of Qt must stay free/open source licensed, or the most recent open version will fall under BSD-license.

[samjh]

It pretty much depends on how you interpret the phrases "important Release" and "corresponding version" in section 3 of the agreement between KDE e.V. and Trolltech (http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/images/agreement3.png). It could be argued that if the the free edition starts to diverge from the Nokia's closed source edition that (1) and (2) kicks in as the free edition wouldn't be a "corresponding" release anymore. But I'm not a lawyer so my opinion is probably moot :-/

The meaning of "important release" is defined in Section 1 of the agreement.

Quoted in verbatim:
"Important Release" means a release of the Qt Free Edition providing bug fixes, performance enhancements and new functionality, all in accordance with industry practice for an actively developed C++ toolkit in a similar state of development.

Also take note of the provision under Section 3(3) of the agreement. If KDE e.V. feel that Qt is not heading in a beneficial direction, they could very well negotiate with the Trolltech-half of the KDE Free Qt Foundation to exercise Section 2 of the agreement (the Foundation has 2 members from KDE e.V. and 2 members from Trolltech), even though Qt continues to be developed and released by Trolltech/Nokia.

Another thing to consider: Qt Open Source edition is licensed under both GPLv2 and GPLv3, and also has exceptions for OpenSSL as well as the Trolltech GPL Exception (http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license-gpl-exceptions.html).

[kripkenstein]

The meaning of "important release" is defined in Section 1 of the agreement.

Quoted in verbatim:
"Important Release" means a release of the Qt Free Edition providing bug fixes, performance enhancements and new functionality, all in accordance with industry practice for an actively developed C++ toolkit in a similar state of development.

That's all very nice, but all of this is subject to interpretation (what is 'industry practice' for an 'actively developed C++ toolkit'?).


Also take note of the provision under Section 3(3) of the agreement. If KDE e.V. feel that Qt is not heading in a beneficial direction, they could very well negotiate with the Trolltech-half of the KDE Free Qt Foundation to exercise Section 2 of the agreement (the Foundation has 2 members from KDE e.V. and 2 members from Trolltech).

And those 2 Trolltech members are now Nokia representatives.

The Free Qt agreement was useful versus Trolltech, but far less so with Nokia. When a Microsoft-sized company disagrees with your legal opinions, it will win in court - if you even have the money to fight it out. Which KDE won't.


Another thing to consider: Qt Open Source edition is licensed under both GPLv2 and GPLv3, and also has exceptions for OpenSSL as well as the Trolltech GPL Exception (http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license-gpl-exceptions.html).
Which is nice, but KDE depends on the continuing goodwill of Nokia for future licenses (GPL4, should we need it, and let's face it we probably will).

[PmDematagoda]

The Free Qt agreement was useful versus Trolltech, but far less so with Nokia. When a Microsoft-sized company disagrees with your legal opinions, it will win in court - if you even have the money to fight it out. Which KDE won't.
Then how did Samba win the networking documentation from Microsoft? From the case history they were pretty much the only people left and did not have much of a chance, yet they won it. And that was a legal opinion since Microsoft had the legal opinion that they could withhold their network specifications.

And by saying such things you are vastly undermining the power that so many popular FOSS projects have behind them since KDE may not be the only people that would rise up, Red Hat most likely would and even some more companies where moves like the ones being feared in this thread would harm them.

Edit:- Also from your views I think you believe that the courts only support big and powerful companies, it doesn't matter if it's Trolltech or Nokia we are dealing with here because it simply doesn't make much of a difference in the outcome.

[samjh]

That's all very nice, but all of this is subject to interpretation (what is 'industry practice' for an 'actively developed C++ toolkit'?).Which is no cause for alarm.

In law, almost everything is subject to interpretation.

To decide what the industry practice is for an actively developed C++ toolkit in similar state of development, well-known examples such as Microsoft's DirectX, could be cited. Industry experts could also provide evidence. Then it is up to the judge to decide - on the balance of probabilities - whether Trolltech/Nokia is in keeping with industry practice.

I like the wording in that clause, because it forces Trolltech/Nokia to release the Qt Free Edition with equal bugfixes, enhancements and new functionality as the commercial version. To do otherwise, will mean that Trolltech/Nokia is not following the standard of "industry practice" set by themselves.


And those 2 Trolltech members are now Nokia representatives.Which doesn't matter. Whether Trolltech or Nokia representatives, they put forward their employers' interests. KDE e.V. representatives will put forward the KDE project's interests. There is much common ground within which to negotiate.


The Free Qt agreement was useful versus Trolltech, but far less so with Nokia. When a Microsoft-sized company disagrees with your legal opinions, it will win in court - if you even have the money to fight it out. Which KDE won't.Exactly what will Nokia disagree with if KDE continues to use the GPLv2/3 release of Qt?

What reasonable scenario do you suggest will eventuate in Nokia taking KDE e.V. to court?


Which is nice, but KDE depends on the continuing goodwill of Nokia for future licenses (GPL4, should we need it, and let's face it we probably will).Still no cause for alarm. There are plenty of FOSS projects with licensing rights held by commercial entities. Nokia has not yet displayed any form of hostility against Qt being released under an open source license. Indeed, Nokia has been supported FOSS projects for mobile devices for over a year.

As per their open letter to open source developers, Nokia and Trolltech have both stated their intention to release Qt under GPL in the future.

The only danger discussed in this thread are imaginary, because of a remark made by a Nokia executive, quoted without context by the OP. When I read the article (http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jun2008/gb20080612_288518.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index _global+business) the statements were very sensible and were friendly - not hostile - toward open source. I don't see any realistic problems, and I also don't think imagining unlikely problems will help the FOSS community.

[kripkenstein]

Then how did Samba win the networking documentation from Microsoft? From the case history they were pretty much the only people left and did not have much of a chance,

Um, no. Samba didn't face Microsoft alone, it was the EU. The EU, being a large sovereign body, dictated that Microsoft needs to release documentation. And this was because Microsoft violated EU laws, which Microsoft must obey if it wants to do business in the EU.

If Nokia fights with KDE, this is a simple contract dispute between the parties. It'll be KDE vs. Nokia, and there is hardly any doubt of the outcome (i.e., Nokia throws money at the lawsuit until KDE goes broke and gives up).



And by saying such things you are vastly undermining the power that so many popular FOSS projects have behind them since KDE may not be the only people that would rise up, Red Hat most likely would and even some more companies where moves like the ones being feared in this thread would harm them.
It's possible that some companies might show an interest here, I think you're right - Red Hat, Novell, perhaps others. It's impossible to say, however, and I think for exactly this reason Red Hat and Novell tend to favor GTK+ over Qt, since it doesn't suffer from these potential licensing lawsuits.

[kripkenstein]

What reasonable scenario do you suggest will eventuate in Nokia taking KDE e.V. to court?

You need to read farther back in the thread, that wasn't the issue. It was the exact opposite, of KDE having to take Nokia to court.



As per their open letter to open source developers, Nokia and Trolltech have both stated their intention to release Qt under GPL in the future.

The only danger discussed in this thread are imaginary, because of a remark made by a Nokia executive, quoted without context by the OP.
The statements are reassuring, but the danger is not imaginary. I have stated a very concrete danger earlier in this thread (the inability to use new FOSS licenses unless Nokia agrees to that). That said, I agree with you that others in this thread have overblown the dangers - but you are ignoring them completely. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

[jomiolto]

It seems that the BusinessWeek article didn't do a very good job at interpreting what Jaaksi was actually saying: http://jaaksi.blogspot.com/2008/06/some-learning-to-do.html (Jaaksi's own blog about the matter).

From the blog:

Companies like Nokia need to learn the open source way of working. This means not only fulfilling the letter of GPL, LGPL etc. but also the spirit. In my mind this means integrating the corporate work with the open source community, participating, contributing back the code, building the code in open projects and not only releasing it when mandatory, not forking, etc. Open source is a very effective way to create software together with others; together with other individuals and other companies. This is something that the corporate must learn to really benefit from open source.

A very good point, and I don't think open source people have much against this.


The open source community should also be willing to learn. I think it would benefit everybody if people developing open source code would understand WHY certain things are made the way they are. Maybe there are other reasons than stupidity and an evil mind? Trying to understand and learn would benefit both open source projects and corporate to come up with better solutions. As an example, a subsidized business model has it challenges in the context of truly open devices. Understanding why, what to do about it, etc, would benefit us all.

This is something that will be much more difficult for some people (and not just because there are people that hate being told that they have something to learn). From how I understand this, he is saying that "as long as there is business in DRM, simlocking, etc. we will keep offering software/hardware to take advantage of it". This is of course natural, since companies are looking to make profit and will do so in every way they legally can. As much as I hate restricting people with DRM and vendor lock-in, I don't see how this could actually change without changes in the laws so that this would become illegal (or at least abolishing the laws that stop people from circumventing these things), as it seems that the average Jane or Joe doesn't care/know about DRM.

It does make me somewhat queazy to know that companies (and not just the cell-phone industry) are using open source for things the limit the freedom of users. But as long as they obey the licenses (whether they be GPL, LGPL, BSD or something else) is there really anything to do about it? (Also, doesn't restricting the customer go against the open source "spirit", that Jaaksi mentions above?)

Finally, there's a very interesting follow up on this whole discussion about Ari Jaaksi's comments by Bruce Perens at: http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/11/43198. He has some quite good points at how open source and proprietary software can co-exist in a same device legitimately, whether you think of this as a good or a bad thing.

[samjh]

If Nokia fights with KDE, this is a simple contract dispute between the parties. It'll be KDE vs. Nokia, and there is hardly any doubt of the outcome (i.e., Nokia throws money at the lawsuit until KDE goes broke and gives up).This is common ********. (No offence directed at you personally.)

A party does not win a court case by throwing money at a lawsuit.

A party wins a court case on questions of evidence and law. Sure, those with money have the advantage (I've been on the losing end of cases because of lack of money), but the advantage is not absolute.

The biggest problem with civil action, is the cost incurred due to time elapsed in preparing for a case. Appeals are another cause for money-wastage, but appeals are more difficult than most realise.

In straight-forward contractual disputes such as breach of license, the actions need not last a long time, nor is there much excuse to allow them to drag out. A lot of civil jurisdictions have case-flow reviews and procedural rules with strict time frames.

In any Nokia vs KDE e.V. lawsuit involving either the GPL or the Free Qt agreement, the paperwork is plainly available for all to see, and people involved are easily located. A trial would last one, maybe two days at most. It would be extraordinary if such a simple dispute dragged any longer.


It's possible that some companies might show an interest here, I think you're right - Red Hat, Novell, perhaps others. It's impossible to say, however, and I think for exactly this reason Red Hat and Novell tend to favor GTK+ over Qt, since it doesn't suffer from these potential licensing lawsuits.The reason why those companies favour GTK+ is because it is licensed under LGPL and no fees apply if their software is released closed-source.

The likelihood of a lawsuit between Nokia and KDE e.V. is negligible. If there is to be a dispute, it would have to be something ridiculous stupendous (to the extent that most of us would cry "idiot" at KDE e.V. for doing something blatantly illegal).

[PmDematagoda]

Um, no. Samba didn't face Microsoft alone, it was the EU. The EU, being a large sovereign body, dictated that Microsoft needs to release documentation. And this was because Microsoft violated EU laws, which Microsoft must obey if it wants to do business in the EU.
Yeah, I thought it was the other way around, but I mistook it, sorry.


If Nokia fights with KDE, this is a simple contract dispute between the parties. It'll be KDE vs. Nokia, and there is hardly any doubt of the outcome (i.e., Nokia throws money at the lawsuit until KDE goes broke and gives up).
Nokia throwing money at a case like that? That would be a lot of money and you can't say that KDE can't do that as well, not when they have some big backers like Novell or even Google. Really saying, Nokia is not the richest company in the world and they have some common sense to not throw money around on a lawsuit.

If Nokia is going to win a lawsuit then it has to have evidence and a good argument, otherwise no amount of money would change the outcome.

[kripkenstein]

In any Nokia vs KDE e.V. lawsuit involving either the GPL or the Free Qt agreement, the paperwork is plainly available for all to see, and people involved are easily located. A trial would last one, maybe two days at most. It would be extraordinary if such a simple dispute dragged any longer.

I truly hope you are right, but time and time again what seem to be simple cases drag on for years. E.g. the SCO trial. You'd think it's a simple contractual matter, since they simply do not have the code to show, but look how long that took (is still taking...).


The reason why those companies favour GTK+ is because it is licensed under LGPL and no fees apply if their software is released closed-source.

Yet Red Hat doesn't release closed-source software - so that can't be the reason. You might be right about Novell, though.



The likelihood of a lawsuit between Nokia and KDE e.V. is negligible. If there is to be a dispute, it would have to be something ridiculous stupendous (to the extent that most of us would cry "idiot" at KDE e.V. for doing something blatantly illegal).
My concern is the exact opposite.

[PmDematagoda]

I thought the SCO trial was ended a long time back in Novell's favour. Was it?

[kripkenstein]

Nokia throwing money at a case like that? That would be a lot of money and you can't say that KDE can't do that as well, not when they have some big backers like Novell or even Google. Really saying, Nokia is not the richest company in the world and they have some common sense to not throw money around on a lawsuit.

Nokia has around 50% more annual revenue than Microsoft. This is one of the biggest companies on the planet.

A lawsuit against KDE is a trivial expense, if it serves some purpose, which is what I suggested in the potential scenario before.



If Nokia is going to win a lawsuit then it has to have evidence and a good argument, otherwise no amount of money would change the outcome.
Actually I think they would have a decent argument in the scenario I mentioned above.

[samjh]

You need to read farther back in the thread, that wasn't the issue. It was the exact opposite, of KDE having to take Nokia to court.Fair enough.

But I still have difficulty envisaging a reasonable scenario where KDE e.V. could not negotiate a deal with Nokia to either revise Qt's license or else to revise the Free Qt agreement.

The FOSS community forms a large chunk of Qt's user-base. Nokia will be extremely foolish to ignore it, especially when one of the biggest hitters in the FOSS community is the KDE project itself.

While Nokia has the monetary advantage in litigation, KDE e.V. and the FOSS community at large has the greater negotiating power.


The statements are reassuring, but the danger is not imaginary. I have stated a very concrete danger earlier in this thread (the inability to use new FOSS licenses unless Nokia agrees to that). That said, I agree with you that others in this thread have overblown the dangers - but you are ignoring them completely. The truth is somewhere in the middle.I understand what you're saying with new FOSS licenses, but it's just I do not see it as dangerous as you make out.

GPLv2 was released in 1991. GPLv3 has been barely released (November 2007). That's a 16-year gap (. Qt is licensed under both GPLv2 and GPLv3, and as a business, it makes sense to keep it up-to-date with various revisions (or replacements for) of the GPL. Also I doubt we will continue to see any of our current FOSS toolkits in their current state - either in usage or licensing - in a decade's time. It is quite likely that neither GTK+ or Qt will exist 10 or 16 years from now.

I do not ignore the dangers. I merely see them as dangers of the lowest priority. There are other issues of bigger worth.

[PmDematagoda]

Actually I think they would have a decent argument in the scenario I mentioned above.

Actually I think you didn't read my complete post, why can't KDE get sufficient funding from other companies or from the Open-source community itself to continue along the case? Also while Nokia may have more profits than MS does, that doesn't really give you much of an idea as to how rich they are since they have deficits like a normal company and also need to keep a good amount of what they earn in case they hit a bad part or the road, do you think Nokia would want to spend all it's earnings on a case like that? I don't think so.

[kripkenstein]

The FOSS community forms a large chunk of Qt's user-base. Nokia will be extremely foolish to ignore it, especially when one of the biggest hitters in the FOSS community is the KDE project itself.

The FOSS community is a major user of Qt, but not a paying user. For Nokia's bottom line, they might matter less than the far smaller number of paying customers (Skype, etc.). Notice that I said 'might' - it's debatable, and either position is possible. And Nokia might change its mind about this from time to time.



I understand what you're saying with new FOSS licenses, but it's just I do not see it as dangerous as you make out.

Well, I don't know how dangerous it is. None of us do, and that is the problem, it's a very uncertain thing. It would be better to not have such uncertainty, that's my only point.



GPLv2 was released in 1991. GPLv3 has been barely released (November 2007). That's a 16-year gap (. Qt is licensed under both GPLv2 and GPLv3, and as a business, it makes sense to keep it up-to-date with various revisions (or replacements for) of the GPL. Also I doubt we will continue to see any of our current FOSS toolkits in their current state - either in usage or licensing - in a decade's time. It is quite likely that neither GTK+ or Qt will exist 10 or 16 years from now.

I might agree with you on most of this, but it's speculation. Again, there is an uncertainty here that I would prefer to not have.



I do not ignore the dangers. I merely see them as dangers of the lowest priority. There are other issues of bigger worth.
That's a fair point, there are certainly bigger issues before the FOSS community, I agree.


Actually I think you didn't read my complete post, why can't KDE get sufficient funding from other companies or from the Open-source community itself to continue along the case? Also while Nokia may have more profits than MS does, that doesn't really give you much of an idea as to how rich they are since they have deficits like a normal company and also need to keep a good amount of what they earn in case they hit a bad part or the road, do you think Nokia would want to spend all it's earnings on a case like that? I don't think so.
I don't think a case against KDE would be very expensive for Nokia - "all it's earnings" is really an exaggeration. Most large companies have several such lawsuits constantly running. Now, perhaps some companies might support KDE in such a case, as you suggest, but (1) this is uncertain, and (2) even they are dwarfed by Nokia.

[plun]

Actually I think you didn't read my complete post, why can't KDE get sufficient funding from other companies or from the Open-source community itself to continue along the case? Also while Nokia may have more profits than MS does, that doesn't really give you much of an idea as to how rich they are since they have deficits like a normal company and also need to keep a good amount of what they earn in case they hit a bad part or the road, do you think Nokia would want to spend all it's earnings on a case like that? I don't think so.

Is it possible to read his thoughts and try to understand him ?
(Without a 100% FSF view).

I can see the same as with Canonicals approach with the notebook-remix that the world IS commercial and it must also open source developers understand. "Bruce Springsteens latest record IS copyrighted..."
The OLPC project was/is in the same situation.

Who will pay for GTK3 :confused:

http://www.jonobacon.org/?p=1196

[samjh]

I truly hope you are right, but time and time again what seem to be simple cases drag on for years. E.g. the SCO trial. You'd think it's a simple contractual matter, since they simply do not have the code to show, but look how long that took (is still taking...).The SCO lawsuits are actually about copyright infringement of code, and there has been much delay in the analysis of Linux and Unix code to identify alleged infringements.

However, yes, they are really about contractual breaches. But SCO needs to show copyright has been infringed in order to prove them. Unfortunately that exercise takes/took a lot of time. SCO's poor financial situation didn't help matters either.


I thought the SCO trial was ended a long time back in Novell's favour. Was it?

August 2007 actually. However there was to be a further trial to determine how much money SCO should pay Novell, but then SCO filed for bankruptcy and the whole thing is ground to a halt.

There are still SCO vs IBM (almost definitely a win for IBM), and RedHat vs SCO (RedHat is the plaintiff for this one), among other cases.


The FOSS community is a major user of Qt, but not a paying user. For Nokia's bottom line, they might matter less than the far smaller number of paying customers (Skype, etc.). Notice that I said 'might' - it's debatable, and either position is possible. And Nokia might change its mind about this from time to time.The FOSS users provide a lot more feedback and testing than just their paying customers, and that helps in making Qt very reliable and feature-rich. Trolltech was fully aware of this, and if I know anything about Trolltech, their executives would have pointed this out to Nokia's powers-that-be.

If Nokia suddenly ceases to release Qt Free Edition, then KDE e.V. will exercise its agreement rights and the latest release of Qt Free Edition will fall under a BSD-like license. If Nokia releases a crippled version for Qt Free Edition, then it breaches Section 3(1), as they are clearly not following an example of "industry practice" that they demonstrate with their own product.

[PmDematagoda]

I don't think a case against KDE would be very expensive for Nokia - "all it's earnings" is really an exaggeration. Most large companies have several such lawsuits constantly running. Now, perhaps some companies might support KDE in such a case, as you suggest, but (1) this is uncertain, and (2) even they are dwarfed by Nokia.

How can this be uncertain? Also the size of the company doesn't matter as long as KDE has the necessary material.

Also into this mix comes the Qt developers themselves, there are developers in Trolltech that really like KDE and one example being the previous KDE project leader as well who works for Trolltech as of now. Now consider Xfree86, before their license change they were pretty much the only X-Server available but after the license change everything changed for them, X.org was created as a fork of Xfree86, most of the Xfree86 developers moved to X.org and X.org became more preferable, why can't this happen in the case of Qt? And if you ask about the developers and their desires for money, who says that the fork would not be sponsored? There would be companies like Novell or Red Hat that could(and most likely will) sponsor the project and it's developers so that developers can make their own decisions without much worry and when that happens it's Qt itself that gets into trouble and I don't think Nokia would be eager to dig a trench for itself.

[kripkenstein]

How can this be uncertain?

It's uncertain because I don't know if Red Hat, Novell etc. will pony up the cash to fight a lawsuit against Nokia. This is both expensive, and also problematic in that it causes disharmony with Nokia, which is a very important company.



Now consider Xfree86, before their license change they were pretty much the only X-Server available but after the license change everything changed for them, X.org was created as a fork of Xfree86, most of the Xfree86 developers moved to X.org and X.org became more preferable, why can't this happen in the case of Qt?

It's possible, but how likely it is no one can say. It's an uncertain matter, and therefore a source of risk. That's all I'm saying. I would prefer that this risk not exist.


And if you ask about the developers and their desires for money, who says that the fork would not be sponsored?

Again, perhaps - maybe yes maybe no. I don't know.

Regardless, note that such a fork cannot change licensing, so it would never be able to use new FOSS licenses - which was my original problem that I mentioned in this thread.

[bruce89]

AFIK, GNOME work was started in 1997 and Icaza's company was bought by Novell in 2003. IOW, I don't think Novell deserves credit for Gnome's existence.

Yes, this is true.


At least Qt has a license where closed sources company's have to pay to use the toolkit and a part of that money flows back to developing Qt and open source, and GTK they can use without giving back anything.

Any changes to GTK+ have to be "given back", thanks to the LGPL.

[PmDematagoda]

A fork doesn't change licensing, but if the fork becomes so successful(and there are times when they do) and if Nokia changes licensing then it will happen unless the new license is GPL friendly in some way, otherwise the FSF will poke their noses in and KDE will have to make a move. And the thing(as I said previously) a fork could harm the original Qt if it's impact is high enough and if that happens then Nokia will lose it.


It's uncertain because I don't know if Red Hat, Novell etc. will pony up the cash to fight a lawsuit against Nokia. This is both expensive, and also problematic in that it causes disharmony with Nokia, which is a very important company.
Even if it is uncertain(pretty hard to believe that thought) that they would get the money to support the lawsuit(if any) it would be very likely that they would sponsor a fork(if it ever happens), especially Novell because of their involvement in OpenSUSE and SLED itself. And if that happens it can harm Nokia more than a lawsuit can.

And one more after-effect if something like this, Nokia will lose a lot of reputation with the FOSS community and this can harm them when trying to start up or sponsor collaborative projects with the FOSS community(and they have done that).

But in any case it is difficult to reach a verdict as to what Nokia would really do, and there is the truth that we could just be misinterpreting the news and nothing may happen at all and even if something does happen the community is strong enough to survive it(In my opinion).

[izanbardprince]

I thought the SCO trial was ended a long time back in Novell's favour. Was it?

Yeah, but regardless how much money or lawyers SCO hired, their case was still very weak and had the judge rolling his eyes before they even got done with their argument.

The judge basically said what SCO did was say "You know what you stole from us, and we're not going to tell you".

[kevin11951]

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,39432956,00.htm


Open-source developers targeting the mobile space need to learn business rules including digital rights management, Nokia's software chief has claimed.

Speaking at the Handsets World conference in Berlin on Tuesday, Dr Ari Jaaksi told delegates that the open-source community needed to be 'educated' in the way the mobile industry currently works, because the industry has not yet moved beyond old business models.

"We want to educate open-source developers," said Jaaksi, who is Nokia's vice president of software and heads up the Finnish handset manufacturer's open-source operations. "There are certain business rules [developers] need to obey, such as DRM, IPR [intellectual property rights], SIM locks and subsidised business models."

Jaaksi admitted that concepts like these "go against the open-source philosophy", but said they were necessary components of the current mobile industry. "Why do we need closed vehicles? We do," he said. "Some of these things harm the industry but they're here [as things stand]. These are touchy, emotional issues, but this dialogue is very much needed. As an industry, we plan to use open-source technologies, but we are not yet ready to play by the rules; but this needs to work the other way round too."

Nokia's primary play in the open-source sphere thus far has been Maemo, the Linux-based operating system that runs on its N800-series tablet devices. These devices are popular among developers in the Maemo developer community but, being something of a testbed, have not yet seen much traction in the mass market.

In his speech, Jaaksi detailed some of the lessons Nokia had learned in its work with the Maemo developer community, primarily the need to avoid 'forking' code: "Don't make your own version," he said. "The original mistake we made was to take the code to our labs, change it and then release it at the last minute. The community had already gone in a different direction than [us], and no-one was pushing it other than [us]. Everybody wants to make their own version and keep it too close to their chest, but that leads to fragmentation."

The manufacturer has one other significant investment in open source, however: the software maker Trolltech, Nokia's purchase of which finally went through in the last few days. Trolltech makes Qt, a graphical toolkit that is used in the KDE Linux desktop environment and in much commercial software, and is an apparently non-participatory member in the LiMo Foundation.

LiMo is an industry consortium that is creating a common middleware layer to help Linux-based software make it onto handsets from a variety of manufacturers. However, neither LiMo nor Maemo use Qt or KDE, opting instead for the GTK+ toolkit and a Gnome-based desktop environment. This has led to a level of industry speculation that Nokia may withdraw Trolltech from LiMo, to use it for other purposes. Nokia stated, when it announced it was to buy Trolltech, that the purchase was to help it move into the applications market.

Speaking to ZDNet.co.uk after his presentation, Jaaksi said Nokia was "only now" able to start thinking about what to do with LiMo. He said he felt Nokia had "a huge responsibility from a desktop and user interface point of view to see how we play our cards", and expressed a keenness to see KDE and Gnome brought "closer".

Jaaksi added that he believed Symbian, the proprietary operating system in which Nokia has a major share, would still "in years to come [be] the best platform on which to create smartphones".

[cardinals_fan]

Compromise is good. One-sided compromise isn't.

[Mateo]

Article refers to open-source developers, not Linux developers. They are not one and the same.

Doesn't get very specific about what open source developers are supposed to be adjusting to. DRM is on the ways out, the other topics are as vague as vague can be.

[kevin11951]

Article refers to open-source developers, not Linux developers. They are not one and the same.

Doesn't get very specific about what open source developers are supposed to be adjusting to. DRM is on the ways out, the other topics are as vague as vague can be.

im just copying from here http://digg.com/linux_unix/Nokia_urges_Linux_developers_to_learn_business

[Redrazor39]

Educate LOL

[madjr]

this was already discussed in another thread, i think it will get merged or closed

[kevin11951]

this was already discussed in another thread, i think it will get merged or closed

really? i did a search, couldn't find anything.

[Tundro Walker]

I personally can't stand mobile devices. Computers have given us the idea that we can load any OS & software on them we want. Then the mobile scene goes against that by locking folks into whatever proprietary software the device uses.

[zmjjmz]

I personally can't stand mobile devices. Computers have given us the idea that we can load any OS & software on them we want. Then the mobile scene goes against that by locking folks into whatever proprietary software the device uses.

That's why I'm scared of this "Smartphone revolution".

[cardinals_fan]

I personally can't stand mobile devices. Computers have given us the idea that we can load any OS & software on them we want. Then the mobile scene goes against that by locking folks into whatever proprietary software the device uses.
I need SPACE! A tiny little screen isn't enough for me to do anything.

[Xanatos Craven]

Haha... "emotional issues". "Learn business".

Nokia seems to want people, who don't need Nokia nearly as much as Nokia needs them, to forget their principles and bend right to their will for Nokia's sole benefit. If this Jaaksi guy meant to convey a different message, his choice of words were quite poor.

[PmDematagoda]

Is it worth pointing out that this same discussion was held extensively here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=827969)?

This thread is closed.