Qtopia-interest Archive, March 2007
[MOQP] What are the plans for the following bits of software
Pages: Prev | 1 | 2 | Next
Message 1 in thread
Hi,
I'm delighted to see that Qtopia4.2.1 was released, this increases
the trust that future versions will stay free. So thanks for that.
There might be a packaging issue with the following subdirs:
src/plugins/applets/batteryapplet
src/plugins/applets/brightness
src/plugins/applets/clipboardapplet
src/plugins/applets/clockapplet
src/plugins/applets/irreceiver
src/plugins/applets/mountmon
src/plugins/applets/netmonapplet
src/plugins/applets/screensize
src/plugins/applets/volumeapplet
src/plugins/decorations/flat
src/plugins/decorations/polished
src/plugins/designer/wizard/
src/plugins/fontfactories/
src/plugins/imagecodecs/ota
src/plugins/imagecodecs//notepad
src/plugins/imagecodecs/wbmp
src/plugins/inputmethods/fshandwriting
src/plugins/inputmethods/handwriting
src/plugins/inputmethods/unikeyboard
src/plugins/styles/flat
src/plugins/styles/fresh
src/plugins/styles/themed
src/plugins/textcodecs
src/plugins/today/datebook
src/plugins/today/email
src/plugins/today/todo
These directories contain a project file but no source. Should the
source be shipped, or should the dir not be created? If this is a
packing bug I could write a small test app to test for such errors.
kind regards
h.
PS: Where to report such bugs to?
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 2 in thread
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 06:00:17PM +0100, Holger Freyther wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm delighted to see that Qtopia4.2.1 was released, this increases
> the trust that future versions will stay free.
it is also utterly irrelevant, until such time as the investors in
trolltech get off their fat asses and make qtopia _truly_ free
software.
there is _absolutely_ no benefit to the pig-headed desire to "own",
and, in fact, given that one of the primary markets and users of qt is
in fact free software developers, it's just pissing people off who
dislike information to be 'enslaved' (a concept that has only just
occurred to me but explains why rms is considered to be insane by some)
> PS: Where to report such bugs to?
precisely.
where, also, is the wiki, where is the subversion repository,
and to whom can i apply to obtain write access _to_ that repository?
i promised at some point several months ago that i would think about
what was bothering me about the trolltech so-called "free software"
release cycle.
it comes down to engagement, and it comes down to ownership.
the trolltech "open source" release is a complete sham.
no free software developer wants to help trolltech because the
investors "disengage" everyone by wanting to "own", to "control"
what they have neither the right nor the need to do either.
the reality is that actually, if trolltech went belly-up tomorrow,
everyone would actually be better off, because all of the trolltech
developers would get hired like a shot for consultancy, training and
development purposes.
look at what happened with blender (.org): it is a salutary lesson in
the success of transforming a proprietary product into a far better and
far more successful free software one.
l.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 3 in thread
Luke:
> where, also, is the wiki, where is the subversion repository,
> and to whom can i apply to obtain write access _to_ that repository?
>
> i promised at some point several months ago that i would think about
> what was bothering me about the trolltech so-called "free software"
> release cycle.
>
> it comes down to engagement, and it comes down to ownership.
>
> the trolltech "open source" release is a complete sham.
>
> no free software developer wants to help trolltech because the
> investors "disengage" everyone by wanting to "own", to "control"
> what they have neither the right nor the need to do either.
>
> the reality is that actually, if trolltech went belly-up tomorrow,
> everyone would actually be better off, because all of the trolltech
> developers would get hired like a shot for consultancy, training and
> development purposes.
>
I gotta ask. If you're so unhappy with Trolltech, then... why are you
still here?
b.g.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 4 in thread
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 12:24:55PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> Luke:
helloooo :)
> I gotta ask. If you're so unhappy with Trolltech, then... why are you
> still here?
:)
perhaps i am trying to teach trolltech's investors something.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 5 in thread
Luke:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 12:24:55PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
>
>> Luke:
>>
>
> helloooo :)
>
Oh, sorry. How rude of me. Hi. :)
> perhaps i am trying to teach trolltech's investors something.
>
Try a language they understand. Say, competition.
Besides, I don't think Trolltech's investors hang out on this list.
b.g.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 6 in thread
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 12:34:22PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> Luke:
>
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 12:24:55PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> >
> >>Luke:
> >>
> >
> > helloooo :)
> >
>
> Oh, sorry. How rude of me. Hi. :)
*does a jig*
> > perhaps i am trying to teach trolltech's investors something.
> >
>
> Try a language they understand. Say, competition.
yes. hmm... *thinks*...
well, they _are_ the market leaders in a fast emerging arena - linux on
mobiles - where they're about to get overtaken and swamped because
actually they're only paying lip-service to free software innovation,
and irritating and alienating the people that they should instead be
encouraging!
THEY should be the ones that are openmoko.
openmoko should be BASED on trolltech qt.
and, because qt and opie II are lip-service free software, it's being
almost completely ignored!
so, they can make money short-term but as soon as openmoko inexorably
becomes well known and proven, trolltech is _dead_.
> Besides, I don't think Trolltech's investors hang out on this list.
yeh, my messages last month drove them all away.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 7 in thread
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 12:24:55PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
>> Luke:
>
> helloooo :)
>
>> I gotta ask. If you're so unhappy with Trolltech, then... why are you
>> still here?
>
> :)
>
> perhaps i am trying to teach trolltech's investors something.
>
>
I am a trolltech investor, what exactly are you trying to teach me?
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 8 in thread
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 06:00:17PM +0100, Holger Freyther wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm delighted to see that Qtopia4.2.1 was released, this increases
>> the trust that future versions will stay free.
>
> it is also utterly irrelevant, until such time as the investors in
> trolltech get off their fat asses and make qtopia _truly_ free
> software.
Since when is GPL software not truly free software? That is what you are
saying.
>
> there is _absolutely_ no benefit to the pig-headed desire to "own",
> and, in fact, given that one of the primary markets and users of qt is
> in fact free software developers, it's just pissing people off who
> dislike information to be 'enslaved' (a concept that has only just
> occurred to me but explains why rms is considered to be insane by some)
Qt is not Qtopia. They have _very_ different customers. These customers
require very different things.
>
>
>> PS: Where to report such bugs to?
>
> precisely.
>
> where, also, is the wiki, where is the subversion repository,
> and to whom can i apply to obtain write access _to_ that repository?
Trolltech does not use subversion for its version control system, nor
has Trolltech ever had open access to internal development. We do have
ways for you to communicate, to give bug reports and even send in
patches, if you wish. and of course, nothing is stopping you from taking
the open source that we release and keeping for own set of fixes, etc.
>
> i promised at some point several months ago that i would think about
> what was bothering me about the trolltech so-called "free software"
> release cycle.
>
> it comes down to engagement, and it comes down to ownership.
>
> the trolltech "open source" release is a complete sham.
really? So you are saying the GPL is a sham. Interesting.
>
> no free software developer wants to help trolltech because the
> investors "disengage" everyone by wanting to "own", to "control"
> what they have neither the right nor the need to do either.
So KDE has no free software developers, hey.
>
> the reality is that actually, if trolltech went belly-up tomorrow,
> everyone would actually be better off, because all of the trolltech
> developers would get hired like a shot for consultancy, training and
> development purposes.
Except that Trolltech is a very unique place to work. It would be
difficult for any business to be as good a place to work at.
>
> look at what happened with blender (.org): it is a salutary lesson in
> the success of transforming a proprietary product into a far better and
> far more successful free software one.
>
> l.
>
> --
> lkcl.net - mad free software computer person, visionary and poet.
> --
>
> --
> To unsubscribe - send "unsubscribe" in the subject to qtopia-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 9 in thread
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 07:29:34AM +1000, Lorn Potter wrote:
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 06:00:17PM +0100, Holger Freyther wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>I'm delighted to see that Qtopia4.2.1 was released, this increases
> >>the trust that future versions will stay free.
> >
> > it is also utterly irrelevant, until such time as the investors in
> > trolltech get off their fat asses and make qtopia _truly_ free
> > software.
>
> Since when is GPL software not truly free software? That is what you are
> saying.
FreeDCE and DCE/DFS is GPL software (actually LGPL) and in various
incarnations DCE/DFS has been used to run some of the biggest distributed
file systems in the world.
DCE/DFS is the world's _only_ fully posix-compliant distributed file
system: it even gets the semantics on posix byte-range-locking correct.
... but does that make any difference?
absolutely none.
it's still not used.
why? two reasons. 1) for a decade, it was pimped by the open group
companies until it was sucked dry: IBM was the last one who spat out
dce 1.22 when they were finally done with dce 3.0 and couldn't make
any more money out of it 2) it's 3.5 MILLION lines of code
that, without a free software community behind it, nobody is going to
pick up and run with it.
it's _too_ advanced for the tiny - and most importantly part-time -
minds of the free software community to comprehend.
lorn - i could go on about this forever, but i'm not going to.
there are a number of things that can be said which "justify away"
what you - and most people - already know to be true.
releasing complex and large software under a free software license
_doesn't_ make it "free".
releasing _simple_ free software - software that is understandable
to even the dumbest of script writer - _that's_ truly FREE software.
knowledge that is USEFUL and ENGAGING.
trolltech, instead of being the "guardians" of the knowledge that has
been accumulated, are in fact the "secret society". the "priesthood".
and the masonic lodges have even opened up their doors (a little), and
churches are being exposed as racketeers rather than spiritual centres
(looked at the correlation of proximity of church buildings to financial
centres recently?)
l.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 10 in thread
Luke:
> trolltech, instead of being the "guardians" of the knowledge that has
> been accumulated, are in fact the "secret society". the "priesthood".
>
> and the masonic lodges have even opened up their doors (a little), and
> churches are being exposed as racketeers rather than spiritual centres
> (looked at the correlation of proximity of church buildings to financial
> centres recently?)
>
Ok, now it's down to troll-feeding. And it's late in the day here, so
my resistance is down. I'll do it even against my better judgement.
I don't see how Trolltech is "guarding" anything, they're giving you the
*entire* source tree! Apparently your definition of "free" doesn't
match my definition of Free.
There, I'm done. You've been a great crowd! Try the veal, tip your
waitress. :)
b.g.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 11 in thread
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>
> lorn - i could go on about this forever, but i'm not going to.
> there are a number of things that can be said which "justify away"
> what you - and most people - already know to be true.
>
> releasing complex and large software under a free software license
> _doesn't_ make it "free".
>
> releasing _simple_ free software - software that is understandable
> to even the dumbest of script writer - _that's_ truly FREE software.
> knowledge that is USEFUL and ENGAGING.
So, by your reasoning, the linux kernel is not free software. Only small
commands such as grep are free software. That leaves out ~99% of the
lines of code that are released under open source licenses. The FSF
definition of free open source software says nothing about code size.
>
> trolltech, instead of being the "guardians" of the knowledge that has
> been accumulated, are in fact the "secret society". the "priesthood".
>
> and the masonic lodges have even opened up their doors (a little), and
> churches are being exposed as racketeers rather than spiritual centres
> (looked at the correlation of proximity of church buildings to financial
> centres recently?)
No, but I have looked at the correlation between churches and bars.
so, whats not open about Qt and Qtopia? Is it simply that it is
developed by Trolltech? I don't see what the problem is.
Anyone can download and look at Qt and Qtopia.
>
> l.
>
>
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 12 in thread
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 09:42:17AM +1000, Lorn Potter wrote:
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> >
> > lorn - i could go on about this forever, but i'm not going to.
> > there are a number of things that can be said which "justify away"
> > what you - and most people - already know to be true.
> >
> > releasing complex and large software under a free software license
> > _doesn't_ make it "free".
> >
> > releasing _simple_ free software - software that is understandable
> > to even the dumbest of script writer - _that's_ truly FREE software.
> > knowledge that is USEFUL and ENGAGING.
>
> So, by your reasoning, the linux kernel is not free software.
if the developers are not fully engaged into the _principles_ of
free software, then, by virtue of them being the "guardians" of the
knowledge, and being the only ones [currently] capable of understanding
that code: then yes - absolutely (BUT - look at the first word of
the sentence. IF they are not engaged. IF they are NOT engaged...)
[a handful of the current linux developers are complete well-meaning
tits who just bumble along with egos only matched by their ability to
write good code, as we well know - but that doesn't make them _truly_
free software developers. they're only kept in line by their peers.
kinda like herd mentality...]
anyway.
30 million lines of code is _well_ beyond most people's understanding.
it might as well be written in sanskrit, on recycled and heavily-shat-on
toilet paper as far as even the _brightest_ programmers are concerned
who have never ever seen a line of linux kernel source code before in
their lives.
for knowledge to be _useful_ it must be _understood_. and if you
haven't got _time_ to understand it, then people will GO ELSEWHERE.
that's what i've been trying to get across: releasing the source code is
only half the story.
you have to _engage_ the developers [with complete FOSS infrastructure]
the day i can apply for write-access to trolltech source repository is
the day i go "hooray!" and start apologising for making a mess of one
of your mailing lists.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 13 in thread
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> if the developers are not fully engaged into the _principles_ of
> free software, then, by virtue of them being the "guardians" of the
> knowledge, and being the only ones [currently] capable of understanding
> that code: then yes - absolutely (BUT - look at the first word of
> the sentence. IF they are not engaged. IF they are NOT engaged...)
I still don't understand which part of GPL software is not free? Are you
saying that because Trolltech dual licenses its software, it's GPL is
somehow less free? Or because it's version control system is not
completely open, that it's GPL is not worthy enough to be called free
software? That's being rather pedantic, don't you think?
The definition of free open source software does not mention anything
about development models, and in fact, every open source project I know
of does not have a completely open control system.. KDE only allows
write access only if you prove yourself first. Same thing with the
kernel trees. I fail to see the difference. There is always some hurdle
to get write access. With Trolltech, it's getting hired as an engineer.
and, anyone can always send patches. This is how some very good
engineers got involved and hired at Trolltech - including my boss.
>
> [a handful of the current linux developers are complete well-meaning
> tits who just bumble along with egos only matched by their ability to
> write good code, as we well know - but that doesn't make them _truly_
> free software developers. they're only kept in line by their peers.
> kinda like herd mentality...]
>
> anyway.
>
> 30 million lines of code is _well_ beyond most people's understanding.
>
> it might as well be written in sanskrit, on recycled and heavily-shat-on
> toilet paper as far as even the _brightest_ programmers are concerned
> who have never ever seen a line of linux kernel source code before in
> their lives.
>
> for knowledge to be _useful_ it must be _understood_. and if you
> haven't got _time_ to understand it, then people will GO ELSEWHERE.
I do not understand quantum physics, but I still think it is useful.
>
> that's what i've been trying to get across: releasing the source code is
> only half the story.
>
> you have to _engage_ the developers [with complete FOSS infrastructure]
We try to. What do you think the Greenphone is about? We are also
developing phone software that allows 3rd party native applications to
be installed, where the operators and users feel safe knowing installed
software isn't going to txt millions of spam, or infect their networks.
Name one company that releases more percentage of their source code as
open source, than Trolltech? First, and foremost, Trolltech is a
business. Our customers buy licenses which in turn pay for development
of both Qt and Qtopia, which we then release under the GPL, for free.
Which makes it free software.
>
>
> the day i can apply for write-access to trolltech source repository is
> the day i go "hooray!" and start apologising for making a mess of one
> of your mailing lists.
You can! Trolltech is still hiring.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 14 in thread
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:04:59PM +1000, Lorn Potter wrote:
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>
> > if the developers are not fully engaged into the _principles_ of
> > free software, then, by virtue of them being the "guardians" of the
> > knowledge, and being the only ones [currently] capable of understanding
> > that code: then yes - absolutely (BUT - look at the first word of
> > the sentence. IF they are not engaged. IF they are NOT engaged...)
>
> I still don't understand which part of GPL software is not free?
example: apple utilises BSD, and sticks "to the letter", not "to the
spirit" of the GPL.
they also utilised samba, along with about a hundred or more other
GPL software packages.
it took me FOUR YEARS to find their GPL modifications, on some _really_
obscure and accidental google search.
so, this is just _one_ example of a way in which GPL software is
_grudgingly_ made free.
> Are you
> saying that because Trolltech dual licenses its software, it's GPL is
> somehow less free?
there's a way in which i can answer that "yes", and there's another
way in it's not exactly causally linked as you imply, and it's to do
with the many implied meanings of "free" and "freedom" and "the spirit
of the GPL" instead of the "letter".
> Or because it's version control system is not
> completely open, that it's GPL is not worthy enough to be called free
> software? That's being rather pedantic, don't you think?
no - i don't - not in the slightest little bit!
> The definition of free open source software does not mention anything
> about development models,
ahhhh _now_ you come down to it.
_precisely_.
consequently, that allows companies like apple to "split hairs" and to
effectively steal free software developer's work.
> and in fact, every open source project I know
> of does not have a completely open control system.. KDE only allows
> write access only if you prove yourself first. Same thing with the
> kernel trees. I fail to see the difference. There is always some hurdle
> to get write access. With Trolltech, it's getting hired as an engineer.
can anyone apply - and still keep ownership of their own intellectual
property?
> and, anyone can always send patches. This is how some very good
> engineers got involved and hired at Trolltech - including my boss.
and did they give up all ownership of their intellectual property
rights, to trolltech, in order for that to happen?
> > you have to _engage_ the developers [with complete FOSS infrastructure]
>
>
> We try to. What do you think the Greenphone is about? We are also
> developing phone software that allows 3rd party native applications to
> be installed, where the operators and users feel safe knowing installed
> software isn't going to txt millions of spam, or infect their networks.
you know what? i'm so relieved that you're doing that. but i'm
_still_ worried that you're going to get overtaken and made irrelevant
by openmoko which is _truly_ according to the SPIRIT of free software,
whereas your "release after the fact: we own it, we decide to release
it as GPL" approach is not _truly_ according to the spirit of free software.
> Name one company that releases more percentage of their source code as
> open source, than Trolltech? First, and foremost, Trolltech is a
> business. Our customers buy licenses which in turn pay for development
> of both Qt and Qtopia, which we then release under the GPL, for free.
> Which makes it free software.
so, you transmute proprietary software into free software.
and it's a laudable way of doing things, and, right now, it works.
what i would like you to consider is this: as the market matures, or
even _while_ it matures, as the pretty much _the_ exclusive company to
whom proprietary hardware companies go to get phones developed,
you are in a position to tell them "nope. sorry. the following
common areas of functionality are free software only. anything else
such as Assisted-GPS, Java Games etc. you can make proprietary,
but the rest is free software".
and, i believe, you're _already_ releasing the majority (the important
common areas) of the code as free software, so what the _heck_ is it
all proprietary for _as well_???
_you_ have the power to level the playing field, and to become an
honest true-to-the-spirit-of-free-software-as-well-as-the-letter
service-industry free software company, to whom people come because
you have the expertise in understanding your highly complex code,
_and_ the linux kernel, _and_ embedded expertise, _and_ you're abreast
of the latest developments and ISO and industry standards.
and, under such circumstances, those proprietary companies would be
_crazy_ to waste time and effort competing with that: their products
would fail with comparatively insane development costs (or symbian
licensing costs) even before they've _started_.
free software has _won_ - it's just that nobody's noticed yet!!!
those 16 "binary modules" that were found in the greenphone linux
kernel?
that's a _good_ example - and trolltech's willingness to take money
and not insist on open-ness is at fault.
> >
> >
> > the day i can apply for write-access to trolltech source repository is
> > the day i go "hooray!" and start apologising for making a mess of one
> > of your mailing lists.
>
> You can! Trolltech is still hiring.
... do i get to keep ownership of all my ideas, inventions, works and
copyright?
_that's_ the kicker. think it through.
much respect,
l.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 15 in thread
ok - a summary is in order.
with great knowledge comes great responsibility.
to quote the great confucious (or whoever it was - i honestly neither
know nor care :)
you - trolltech - are the guardians of a great set of knowledge, and
its implementation: linux embedded phones / devices expertise.
you've won, basically! free software has _won_ - it's game over for
proprietary software: it's rolling down hill from here on, steamrolling
and making irrelevant those companies that don't get that.
so the question that trolltech needs to be asking itself is this: in the
new future that fits the "spirit of freedom from intellectual slavery",
does trolltech, who have become the guardians of embedded linux, _really_
want to try to hold "ownership" of intellectual property? it's a
conflict that _needs_ resolving.
i realise that this runs against the grain of capitalistic tendencies.
but capitalism and the obsessive and cancerous search of profits
has destroyed so much, i cannot _begin_ to tell you how desperately
disappointed, saddened and angry i am with that, world-wide.
anyway. enough. i'll go bother someone else.
l.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Pages: Prev | 1 | 2 | Next
