MESSAGE
| DATE | 2006-05-19 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Its a sorry day for The Linux Journal
|
/etc/rant - The Spirit of Open Source
By Nicholas Petreley
Created 2006-02-23 02:00
How dare Linus Torvalds recommend that people use what's best?
Dang. I had intended to rant about wikis this month, but Dave Taylor
covered the topic thoroughly and did a much better job than I would
have. See his article "Why I Don't [strike]Like[/strike] [edit: Get]
Wikis" in this issue.
There's plenty of other things to rant about, however. There's the
schizophrenic, religious and hypocritical zealotry of free/open-source
advocates that often gets more ink than the sane attitudes that are more
prevalent in the development community itself.
Take the irrational fear of Java and its gatekeeper, Sun, as an example.
Do you realize there are people who still insist that the only
acceptable version of Java is a clean-room open-source implementation
that (they presume) cannot be controlled by Sun? Did you also know that,
according to Evans data, the vast majority of Linux developers uses
Java-based Eclipse as their favorite integrated development environment
(IDE)?
I'm using the Java-based Jedit to write this column. I use Jedit because
I think it is the best editor on the planet. Ask me if I'm afraid that
Sun will send the Java police after me to collect a license fee. No, ask
me what I would do if Sun did that? I'd gladly pay up. Why? I told you.
I think Jedit is the best editor on the planet and I want to use it.
Do you know what Linux developers named as their second favorite IDE?
KDevelop. That's right, the KDE-based IDE that depends upon the evil Qt.
Sure you can use the GPL version of Qt, which requires you to share your
code. But Qt is evil because you have to pay license fees to its
creator, Trolltech, if (and only if) you want to sell a closed-source
proprietary application based on Qt.
GTK, on the other hand, is good, because you can sell closed-source
proprietary applications based on GTK without having to give anything
back to the people whose work you exploited in order to make your money.
Don't take my word for it. When I talked to Ximian's Miguel de Icaza, he
named the LGPL license as the reason why people should choose GTK and
GNOME over Qt and KDE. And it is the LGPL that allows people to exploit
the work of the developers of GTK and GNOME without having to compensate
them with money or source code.
In view of this, it is beyond me how GTK and GNOME remain the poster
children of open source for so many open-source advocates.
What is the spirit of open source? It is the GNU General Public License.
The idea is that if you publish software that integrates someone else's
publicly available work (work licensed under the GPL), you are required
to make your additional work available to the public as well.
The Linux kernel is based on the GPL. NVIDIA violates the GPL because it
keeps some of its Linux kernel driver code secret. The end result is
that you will "taint" the kernel if you use NVIDIA's closed-source
kernel module. Shame on NVIDIA. It isn't sharing like it's supposed to.
Fine. I agree with that. But how can you go from there to saying GTK is
good because it allows--no, invites--you to do what NVIDIA does? The
whole point of the LGPL is to allow you to add something to GTK without
having to compensate the GTK developers with either money or source
code.
Don't get me wrong. Personally, I couldn't care less what motivates
people to use Qt, GTK, Java, Python or the practically useless GCJ (GNU
Java compiler). What irks me is when someone advocates inferior
solutions purely in the name of open source, especially when those
so-called open-source solutions so clearly violate the spirit of open
source.
If you want a good example of the right attitude, look no further than
Linus Torvalds, Linux creator. You don't have to agree with his methods
or his decisions, but I don't see how anyone can impugn his motives.
Here is a man who cares about what's right and what has practical value.
So what are we to make of the fact that Linus Torvalds criticized GNOME
and recommended KDE? Here we have the creator of the Linux kernel
criticizing what many see as the poster child of open source and
recommending the evil Qt-based KDE. Why would our open-source hero say
such a thing? Because in his opinion (an opinion I share), the GNOME
design is so bad it should be considered a disease.
You don't have to agree with him, but it's plain that his recommendation
is based on his opinion of what works best. There's no sign of misguided
zealotry or religion in that recommendation. Use what's best. What a
concept. Linux developers seem to get it. It's about time the
open-source zealots got it too.
Nicholas Petreley is Editor in Chief of Linux Journal and a former
programmer, teacher, analyst and consultant who has been working with
and writing about Linux for more than ten years.
Links
Source URL: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8825
|
|
