Why is Qtopia much faster?

[Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:21:21 +1000 Lorn Potter <lpotter at trolltech.com> babbled:

> Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:42:19 +1000 Lorn Potter <lpotter at trolltech.com>
> > babbled:
> > 
> >> Holger Freyther wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday 23 July 2008 01:38:35 Lorn Potter wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> i never mentioned commercial apps nor money.
> >>>> Yes you did. "pay for a license' implies both money and you needing a
> >>>> commercial license, which implies you intend on producing closed source
> >>>> applications.
> >>> maybe he just wants commercial support? So that someone looks at the
> >>> patches he sends?
> >> Neuros uses the GPL license and has a support package.
> >>
> >> and we do look at patches you send.
> > 
> > again - i said nothing of a closed or commercial app and charging for it -
> > is said that i would HAVE to pay a license fee to get qt under a license
> > OTHER than GPL so *I* can release my software under a non-GPL infested
> > license (eg MIT-X11, BSD, etc. etc.). my point being that not all type of
> > open are the same
> > - and people prefer different levels of freedom and openness. i prefer to
> > give my users more freedom of choice than you give yours. thuds my choice
> > would always be to not use qt as it would restrict my freedoms to only be
> > the kind of freedom you want, and in turn restrict my users too.
> > 
> 
> By releasing something that allows closed source linking, you are restricting
> your users rights to recompile all the software. How is that giving your
> users more rights? If you don't like free software, why the heck are you

as i said - YOU subscribe to one kind of freedom - i subscribe to another. mine
allows a developer to create a closed application or library if they want to -
that gives them freedom. THIS app and THIS library now cannot be considered
open. but i do not begrudge them the freedom to do so.

i very much align myself with Voltaire - not RMS.

"I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect
your right to say it".

or in software terms:

"I disagree with you making your software that uses mine closed source, but I
will fight to the death to protect your right to do so".

I believe in true freedom - and true freedom does NOT impose someone elses
ideas of freedom on others. That is what I believe.

So in the case of a closed app or lib built on top - well then, it is still the
choice of a user to not use that app or library, but i sure am not going to
force a particular brand of open (GPL in this case) down the throats of people.
LGPL is definitely acceptable. as is BSD, MIT-X11 as the limitations of the
license do not virally spread beyond the boundaries of the actual piece of
software released and licensed under it. :)

-- 
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <raster at openmoko.org>