Qt 3.1b1

Neil Stevens neil at qualityassistant.com
Mon Sep 9 15:26:38 BST 2002

Hash: SHA1

On Monday September 09, 2002 07:17, Rob Kaper wrote:
> On Monday 09 September 2002 15:44, Thomas Zander wrote:
> > How can we tell those developers we promised BC during the whole KDE
> > 3.x series that even before 3.1 is released the BC is being broken
> > allready; "Sorry not our fault!" ??
> >
> > If nothing else; its a really big PR problem.
> Qt is GPL, we can provide a patch which keeps it BC and urge the trolls
> to see the need to incorporate that patch and preferably write it
> themselves, but with some cooperation I assume we should be able to work
> with them on this issue.

Don't forget the even simpler solution:  Document that KDE 3.1 requires Qt 
3.0.something, not Qt 3.1.

It's also the legally easier solution:  To tie KDE to a GPL Qt by requiring 
a patched Qt would tie *all* of KDE to a GPL Qt, and make some KDE free 
software (including Noatun) illegal to distribute in binary form.

> "Not our fault" would be response that will attract many flames like "ït
> is your fault for choosing Qt" and we'd be back in the whole "KDE sucks
> because it uses a proprietary toolkit". True, it's not proprietary, but
> Qt is mostly developed in a bazaar style. While that has given us many
> advantages (it is a good product), there are also some pitfalls and it
> seems like this is one of them.

It *is* KDE's fault of KDE requires Qt 3.1 and the use of Qt 3.1 breaks 
compatibility.  If KDE chose to use Qt 3.1, despite having found out that 
Qt 3.1 is BIC, whose fault can it be?  Qt is free software, so nobody 
*made* KDE upgrade.
- -- 
Neil Stevens - neil at qualityassistant.com
"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding
because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they
have not a single political argument left." - Margaret Thatcher
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list