Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qt 5.0.1 Released, Fixes Bugs

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

  • Qt 5.0.1 Released, Fixes Bugs

    Phoronix: Qt 5.0.1 Released, Fixes Bugs

    Six weeks after releasing Qt 5.0, Digia has today declared the release of Qt 5.0.1 as the first point release of this new tool-kit...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI4ODc

  • #2
    Oh they forgot to fix bug no. 1: "Qts CLA fucks freedom and fragments the community". They really need to do that. Maybe they just dont care about developers freedom and securing copyleft. Oh yeah they need to fix bug no. 2: "Closed source Qt modules must be liberated".

    What a bunch pf freedom hating posers. Anyone supporting this shit are nothing more than worn out groupies who didnt learn the lesson from Oracle. Well maybe they like the submissive part where their freedom is being fucked. I hope for their recovery though. Regaining enough self respect and saying NO to crap like CLA is tough though. Stockholm syndrome will also cause people to actually defend this kind of abuse. Sad but true. Im praying for the victims.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
      Oh they forgot to fix bug no. 1: "Qts CLA fucks freedom and fragments the community". They really need to do that. Maybe they just dont care about developers freedom and securing copyleft. Oh yeah they need to fix bug no. 2: "Closed source Qt modules must be liberated".

      What a bunch pf freedom hating posers. Anyone supporting this shit are nothing more than worn out groupies who didnt learn the lesson from Oracle. Well maybe they like the submissive part where their freedom is being fucked. I hope for their recovery though. Regaining enough self respect and saying NO to crap like CLA is tough though. Stockholm syndrome will also cause people to actually defend this kind of abuse. Sad but true. Im praying for the victims.
      Funkstar just to fuck with you im gonna keep saying this every single time you bash Qt. The difference between Digia and Oracle? Oracle didn't have a contract with KDE that said if $CURRENT_OWNER_OF_Qt ever fucks over the Qt Community they are legally obligated to give KDE a BSD Licensed version of Qt with all closed source modules included with a Copyrigt assignment BACK to KDE.

      There is LITERALLY no danger to using Qt thanks to that contract because they CANT pull an oracle and if they TRY to then we would have Digia-Qt and KDE-Qt and I'd be willing to bet that KDE-Qt would become the new Qt standard

      Comment


      • #4
        So our first victim of Stockholm syndrome is here to defend Oracle2. How sad. Well KDEs paper deal aint worth shit. Oracle2 has plenty room to fuck freedom.

        Trailing open source version by a year.
        Keep releasing closed source, closed governed modules.
        Refocusing on non free platforms.
        Be idiots.
        Stop developing, refuse new community commits and make Qt a cashcow.
        Etc.

        It is really easy. If Oracle2 really cares about freedom, they would stop the horror of CLA.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
          So our first victim of Stockholm syndrome is here to defend Oracle2. How sad. Well KDEs paper deal aint worth shit. Oracle2 has plenty room to fuck freedom.
          Funky, your time would be better spent building a better alternative than going all Westboro Baptist on us.

          Fact is, Qt is by far the best free toolkit around, it is fully GPL, multi-platform, stable, featureful, supported by a lively community and has been leading Linux desktop innovation since 1996.

          If you want to replace it with something else, make sure that you have a fully GPL toolkit that is better.

          In general, the correct way about doing Free Software development is to offer a solution which is better. Your way seems to be FUD, sabotage, and trolling. Simply contribute code to competing toolkits until they are better, it is much more effective. Your current approach has been failing for more than 15 years, you should have learned by now.

          Comment


          • #6
            BTW, which compiler do you use?

            GCC requires copyright assignment. LLVM can be closed by anyone, which is worse than GPL+CLA.

            I wait, let me guess. You use the Fedora default and will kill everyone who runs anything that is not Fedora default? Same as always then.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
              BTW, which compiler do you use?

              GCC requires copyright assignment. LLVM can be closed by anyone, which is worse than GPL+CLA.

              I wait, let me guess. You use the Fedora default and will kill everyone who runs anything that is not Fedora default? Same as always then.
              GCC requires CA to FSF who will never close it up or do commercial shit to compromise freedom. Unlike Oracle2. Arch BTW.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                GCC requires CA to FSF who will never close it up
                And Qt is secured against being closed by a legal contract. So it will not be closed either.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                  And Qt is secured against being closed by a legal contract. So it will not be closed either.
                  Qt is not secured to be copyleft(free software). And new Qt modules can be closed source making the open edition lack features. This is happening right now. Sure you dont care about freedom. Why dont you take your Qt to windows it seems like the right place for you.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                    What a bunch pf freedom hating posers.
                    Don't you support Steam?

                    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                    Anyone supporting this shit are nothing more than worn out groupies who didnt learn the lesson from Oracle.
                    Who actually had issues with Oracle? I haven't -- the open source software they make is good, actually (eg. VirtualBox).

                    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                    Well maybe they like the submissive part where their freedom is being fucked.
                    Nope.

                    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                    Stockholm syndrome will also cause people to actually defend this kind of abuse. Sad but true.
                    Will the AMD syndrome save people from the eviiiil NVIDIA? Sad but true.

                    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                    Im
                    I'm. FTFY.

                    ----

                    While we're at toolkits, can I have my GTK3 Windows port please?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                      Qt is not secured to be copyleft(free software).
                      If a GPL/LGPL version of Qt were ever discontinued, it would be released under an FSF-approved license of the KDE Free Qt Foundation's choosing, and all of them are KDE people.

                      So any effort to close Qt would result in a GPL version, PLUS a BSD version. The BSD version would kill closed-source Qt development in its tracks. It's a really good agreement, actually.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Don't talk about freedom

                        Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                        Oh they forgot to fix bug no. 1: "Qts CLA fucks freedom and fragments the community". They really need to do that. Maybe they just dont care about developers freedom and securing copyleft. Oh yeah they need to fix bug no. 2: "Closed source Qt modules must be liberated".

                        What a bunch pf freedom hating posers. Anyone supporting this shit are nothing more than worn out groupies who didnt learn the lesson from Oracle. Well maybe they like the submissive part where their freedom is being fucked. I hope for their recovery though. Regaining enough self respect and saying NO to crap like CLA is tough though. Stockholm syndrome will also cause people to actually defend this kind of abuse. Sad but true. Im praying for the victims.
                        So, your version of freedom is your way or no way ?! Why shouldn't anybody have freedom to release code under any license they please ? And who is >forcing< you to use their code ?

                        In my observations, the Stockholm syndrome applies very strongly to gnome/gtk groupies. Usually they are the one who keep whining about Qt forever, with utter disregard to facts and common sense. I do not feel abused running Qt based s/w. And I am even stronger in my opinions than any damn asshole. And I have the reasoning to back them.

                        I do believe s/w should be free but I do not begrudge people who make money from it, as long as people are not >forced< to use and pay for it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          funkstar has a point, though it may get a bit hard to see with the attitude.

                          The Qt agreement with KDE will not prevent Qt from becoming open-core, or being slowly chipped away from the edges. It's not limited to new closed-source only modules, but they way I believe it is it also allows them to do something like this:

                          1. You contribute some new feature. You sign their CLA.
                          2. They ship it as a closed source module, and it never appears in the open source edition.

                          They are fully within their rights to do that, are they not?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by curaga View Post
                            The Qt agreement with KDE will not prevent Qt from becoming open-core, or being slowly chipped away from the edges.
                            Nothing that is currently available as part of the Qt Project, nor anything submitted to the Qt project, can ever become closed-source. Further, nothing that touches the core of Qt can ever become closed-source.

                            The worst that can happen is that Digia releases some modules they created and that have always been closed-source as closed source. However, this can never be a large portion of Qt because, again, anything that integrates too tightly with the core of Qt has to have an open-source license.

                            Digia has no special rights in this regard, anyone anywhere can create closed-source modules for Qt and sell them at whatever price they want. Digia doesn't have any special privileges in this way. Technically, anyone who wanted to could give their closed-source modules away to whoever buys a closed-source license to Qt, but of course only Digia has a motive to do this.

                            Originally posted by curaga View Post
                            1. You contribute some new feature. You sign their CLA.
                            2. They ship it as a closed source module, and it never appears in the open source edition.

                            They are fully within their rights to do that, are they not?
                            No, they cannot do this. They are allowed to add additional licenses, but they are not allowed to remove existing licenses. So if you submit your code under the standard LGPL/GPL dual license, they can add whatever additional licenses they want, but they cannot remove your LGPL/GPL license. No part of Qt that has an open-source license can ever have that license removed
                            Last edited by TheBlackCat; 02-01-2013, 10:02 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                              Nothing that is currently available as part of the Qt Project, nor anything submitted to the Qt project, can ever become closed-source. Further, nothing that touches the core of Qt can ever become closed-source.
                              The agreement doesn't touch that. For example, they could create a bugfix for core Qt and only ship it in the commercial version, fully legally. This is one way how it could be open-cored. This is my understanding by reading the jpeg agreement; if I'm wrong, please say which part says they cannot do this.

                              No, they cannot do this. They are allowed to add additional licenses, but they are not allowed to remove existing licenses. So if you submit your code under the standard LGPL/GPL dual license, they can add whatever additional licenses they want, but they cannot remove your LGPL/GPL license. No part of Qt that has an open-source license can ever have that license removed
                              Of course they cannot remove the license of the patch, as it exists in its patch form. But they can, under the CLA, put the same code under a license of their choice, while also not including it in the official Qt open source edition.

                              Please note the difference: the new feature is available in its patch form, under its original license. But it may never be integrated in the official open source edition, while at the same time shipping in the commercial edition.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X