Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

In the dark prehistory of the Linux desktop, Qt/KDE was GPL so Gtk/GNOME went with the "more free" LGPL to support proprietary apps. I guess that strain of pragmatism hasn't gone away.


It's the other way around -- Qt wasn't GPL until 2005, GNOME started in 1997 in response to the non-free license.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME#History


Ah, right, Qt wasn't GPL but it still "infected" apps with a copyleft-like provision.


It's not massively important, but I still think it's a good idea not to make a conclusion and then work your way back through history viewing with that lens.

GNOME was (and is as far as I know) part of GNU. The G stands for GNU -- GNU Network Object Model Environment. It actually had a CORBA ORB in it. Apart from the misguided idea of building a DE around CORBA (which, I admit, I thought was a fantastic idea at the time), the main reason for doing the work was that KDE was built on top of QT. KDE was GPL and everybody was completely happy with that part of it. The problem was that it was built on top of something that the FSF felt was incompatible with the GPL (I can't remember the exact issue).

GNOME uses the LGPL for its libraries and the GPL for its applications -- as per virtually every normal FSF project. One of the reasons there were more libraries in GNOME than you might ordinarily have was because it was intended to be a set of distributed components all talking together over TCP/IP. It's an enormous mistake, but as I am fond of saying, we're all young once.

Anyway, the point is that your notion that GNOME was somehow more pragmatic in terms of trying to avoid copyleft licenses is completely incorrect.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: