Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GStreamer 1.2 Feature Release Is Now Available

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by Honton View Post
    And how does this make it a lie?
    "No. It was an abstraction layer needed by Qt to serve different DRM platforms to the paying customers."

    No, it wasn't.

    "Later it was tossed over the wall and adopted by KDE for reasons unknown to man kind."

    It was never "tossed over the wall", nor was it "adopted by KDE". It was created by KDE for KDE.

    Originally posted by Honton View Post
    It ended up being CLAed or CAed.
    Do you have a source for that?

    Originally posted by Honton View Post
    Do your home work.
    So says the person who didn't even know where phonon came from.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Honton View Post
      Are you claiming Qt would let free code go into Qt? Haha Qt won't accept free code. It needs to be turned non-free by the means of CLA or a copyright transfer. I suggest you go look up the copyright notice from Phonon on its time for "adoption".

      That is the difference between you and me. I knpw what Im talking about and know Phonon's history.
      Actually, no, you are not. The code keeps to be GPL licensed and there is no copyright transfer (which is in many European countries not possible anyways). As said in other threads before, you are not a lawyer, so your interpretations of the licenses and CLAs/CAs are meaningless. Now go troll someone else.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by Honton View Post
        This is ridiculous. No GPL code enters Qt. It has to rooadly licensed to Digia. That is what the CLA fuss is about!
        Qt is licensed under a commercial and open source license (GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1).
        https://qt-project.org/products/licensing
        Even for a troll like you this shouldn't be hard to understand, but I am not expecting anything from you.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Honton View Post
          What are you so confused about? Do you really think Qt would merge up GPL code? No way, they want a non-free broad license for the code. That is why you are asked to sign the CLA. How hard can it be to understand such simple things?
          Lying again, as usual. All Qt code must be dual-licensed GPLv2.0 and LGPLv2.1. They will not accept any code under any circumstances that is not under both of those licenses.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Honton View Post
            Let me ask you the same thing. Do you really think Qt would accept your GPL+LGPLed code? That would imply Free software is acceptable for Qt
            Completely ignoring everything I said, as usual.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Honton View Post
              Please answer the question? Do you really think Digia wants your free code?
              I already answered the question. I am not going to repeat it. You refused to read it the first time, I see no reason to think repeating it will improve the situation.

              Comment


              • #27
                It's the same way of adoption as it is done with webkit. Now let me try to apply your logic: webkit is not free software, because otherwise Digia would not have merged it into Qt. Gnome heavily integrates with webkit-gtk, which also incorporates webkit (that apple crap, you know). Now you also can say, that gnome uses f** non-free software. Agreed?

                And if you know so much about phonons history, you also should know that phonon actually was developed by kde developers to get away with relying on one solution for audio (just remember arts). As it turned out to be quite good Qt decided to make it available for everyone using qt and bundled it. They merged kdes phonon from time to time to stay up2date.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Honton View Post
                  Please answer the question? Do you really think Digia wants your free code?
                  Maybe we let Honton himself answer this question:
                  Originally posted by Honton View Post
                  It gives KDE the right to re-license the LGPLed free version for linux
                  You just debunked yourself.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Honton View Post
                    The Qt CLA is what makes Digia saying no to free software patches
                    So LGPL is a non-free license now? Just get over it, you outed yourself officially as a mindless troll.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Honton View Post
                      Nobody claims LGPL is non-free. Are you able to understand the simple FACT that the Qt CLA asks for an additional broad license which by nature is non-free, so that Qt can be dual licensed? If not, then good luck
                      Fixed that for you.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X