Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Digia Merging Apple iOS Support Into Qt 5.1

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    That muffin shop on the corner of your street is selling muffins that were made with a freely available recipe (under an LGPL like license) with their propriatary icing on top! Quick, grab the pitch-forks and torches!

    Wait, no, wrong metaphor. Oh well, still funny.
    Last edited by Nobu; 02-19-2013, 07:12 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      I guess a more appropriate metaphor (or, analogy, in this case) would go something like this:

      A baker has a stack of muffin recipe printouts on the counter, and is giving them away for free. You can use them to make your own muffins, and use those muffins to support your propriatary additions (icing, sprinkles, etc.), but you must contribute any modifications to the actual recipe (more milk, no egg-white, etc.) back. The baker additionally offers commercial support/license, for those who wish to use the recipe in their business. It is not required, but he/she claims that it would be beneficial.

      (Edit: If it is required, they should change should to must. Otherwise, it implies an alternative, although "less" appealing, option.)
      Last edited by Nobu; 02-19-2013, 07:35 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
        Thank you for putting it straight; Qt is NOT under the license restriction making it free software.
        All three public domain, permissive and copyleft licenses are free software licenses.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
          Thank you for putting it straight; Qt is NOT under the license restriction making it free software.
          You don't get it, do you? You said yourself that 'Qt is NOT under ... restriction ...' therefore it' actually more free!
          f.e. BSD is more free than GPL. Ability to fork the code and release it under almost whatsoever license is part of FREEDOM. Freedom that GPL do not have.

          And you do not have to use BSD when you want to contribute to Qt. It's up to you. It's your freedom to give them more freedom.
          And of course that Digia like BSD. It gives them freedom to sell it under many other licenses.
          They can stop developing Qt under LGPL, again, it's their freedom. But the last LGPL version will stay intact! They can't close it as you say or whatever. Nobody can.
          Last edited by Grawp; 02-20-2013, 08:49 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            KDE also has a license agreement with Digia that if they ever stopped updating or let the LGPL version fall behind the proprietary one, they would have to release the most recent version to KDE under a BSD license that lets them redistribute it. So even if Digia stopped their LGPL releases, KDE would keep releasing the closed version because they'd still get it under BSD, which is even more permissive than LGPL, so it is in Digia's best interests to keep the lgpl release strong.

            At the end of the day, qt is the best gui toolkit I've ever used amongst mono, windows forms, gtk, swing, and wx. As long as I have the option, I use qt for interfaces, and with the iOS support coming, I can't see myself writing a new mobile or desktop app in any other framework anymore, just because porting between devices becomes as easy as a new QML layout, build path, and drop in slots.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Grawp View Post
              You don't get it, do you? You said yourself that 'Qt is NOT under ... restriction ...' therefore it' actually more free!
              You really have to learn the difference. Free is not the same as free software.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by zanny View Post
                KDE also has a license agreement with Digia that if ...
                Yeah sure. "If Digia fucks software freedom we can fuck it even furter by cancelling out copyleft from GPL licensed code." WHOA A VERY NICE DEAL SECURING FREEDOM. what a load of shit.
                Last edited by funkSTAR; 02-20-2013, 04:23 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                  Yeah sure. "If Digia fucks software freedom we can fuck it even furter by cancelling out copyleft from GPL licensed code." WHOA A VERY NICE DEAL SECURING FREEDOM. what a load of shit.
                  Brb, gonna go write some Coca / Mono / Windows Form apps. I'll write back bout the "software freedom".

                  We have an LGPL toolkit that isn't ass to use like gtk, runs on everything that matters, and uses two programming languages and a serialization format I prefer. I like it.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    GPL, imho, isn't "software freedom". It's "software liberty"--in other words, it grants us the liberty of using code (or, liberates--makes free--that code) which would otherwise be unavailable because the modifications would not be provided back to us.

                    We are, of course, "Free" to use the source code which were granted access to however we want, with the "Restriction" that we must liberate the modifications we make, the same as everyone else.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                      You really have to learn the difference. Free is not the same as free software.
                      Well I really know the difference between GPL and BSD, MIT... and now I know what you mean by 'free software' collocation and it's tricky and ugly because it's less free.

                      Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                      Yeah sure. "If Digia fucks software freedom we can fuck it even furter by cancelling out copyleft from GPL licensed code." WHOA A VERY NICE DEAL SECURING FREEDOM. what a load of shit.
                      I think that you don't dislike Digia in particular. You just don't like public domain! (at all). You're like Richard Stallman's preacher!
                      Tell me father is f.e. Clang & LLVM eternal evil?

                      Explain to me why are you bothered by this, because in the case that Qt is released under BSD you can fork it under GPL. Really. This is the biggest mystery for me. You can always go BSD->GPL. Are you afraid that developers would chose BSD? If yes, isn't there a reason for it?
                      Are you afraid that some company could create a successful commercial framework from it? Well brace yourself, I've got some news for you. Qt was not created by your church, the FSF, but by Trolltech, a company (successful or not). It was the creators' good will and certainly some other reasons to provide a opensource version.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                        You really have to learn the difference. Free is not the same as free software.
                        According to wikipedia and gnu.org, Qt, because it is licensed under LGPL, is free software. You can use a different definition of free software when you discuss with yourself. When discussing with the rest of the world, the "rest of the world"'s definition applies.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Grawp View Post
                          Well I really know the difference between GPL and BSD, MIT... and now I know what you mean by 'free software' collocation and it's tricky and ugly because it's less free.



                          I think that you don't dislike Digia in particular. You just don't like public domain! (at all). You're like Richard Stallman's preacher!
                          As I understand it Stallman has no problem with Qt after they released the gpl version many years ago.
                          According to fsf shouldn't the LGPL they use today be worse than the old GPL release. As I understand it according to fsf you should only use LGPL if you need it to compete with some "evil" libs. Your goal should be to release libs with GPL
                          Last edited by Akka; 02-21-2013, 07:37 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Akka View Post
                            As I understand it Stallman has no problem with Qt after they released the gpl version many years ago.
                            According to fsf shouldn't the LGPL they use today be worse than the old GPL release. As I understand it according to fsf you should only use LGPL if you need it to compete with some "evil" libs. Your goal should be to release libs with GPL
                            Stop quantifying one license better or worse than another. They serve different purposes. LGPL means that any modifications anyone but Digia makes to qt need to be made publicly available. GPL means that anything using the code must be made publicly available beyond just the project itself. As a gui framework, it is prohibitive to ask commercial businesses to use the GPL, and in the case of qt, they might very much prefer the commercial license just to "be safe" in not violating the LGPL tenants about modification of qt itself.

                            For software freedom, the GPL means you can't ever think about using it without staying open, but that just means a bunch of commercial entities won't look at it. In the context of the qt project itself, LGPL is great because it means anyone modifying needs to contribute back improvements (except for Digia, but if they stopped updating the LGPL qt KDE by contract gets the proprietary qt under a BSD license they can release themselves to keep it open).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Dudes; make up your minds. Either you blame me for being pro or con FSF. Not both.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by zanny View Post
                                Stop quantifying one license better or worse than another. They serve different purposes. LGPL means that any modifications anyone but Digia makes to qt need to be made publicly available. GPL means that anything using the code must be made publicly available beyond just the project itself. As a gui framework, it is prohibitive to ask commercial businesses to use the GPL, and in the case of qt, they might very much prefer the commercial license just to "be safe" in not violating the LGPL tenants about modification of qt itself.

                                For software freedom, the GPL means you can't ever think about using it without staying open, but that just means a bunch of commercial entities won't look at it. In the context of the qt project itself, LGPL is great because it means anyone modifying needs to contribute back improvements (except for Digia, but if they stopped updating the LGPL qt KDE by contract gets the proprietary qt under a BSD license they can release themselves to keep it open).
                                FSF think GPL is a better licence. They don't think the possibility of closed source program using the libs is a good thing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X