Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qt 4.8 Draws In Platform Abstraction, New WebKit

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

  • #16
    Qt might be better than Gtk as a dev platform, but having different source code for commercial vs open source releases sure isn't helping their image. They need to get that shit sorted out, or else it will look like the open source users are treated as some kind of second-class citizens.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by timofonic View Post
      They don't follow a true FOSS development model, yet they want FOSS project follow them.

      I don't trust Digia at all, simple as that. They are not showing a proper leadership of the project and I'm in doubt they can do it in the way other corporate sponsored projects like WebKit get developed.

      They need to change it or Qt will be forked...
      Digia handles the Qt Commercial licensing not the Qt developement or leadership (that's on Qt Project and Nokia/Trolltech). I think you are highly underestimating the work needed to fork an entire application framework if you really believe that people are going to do it if one company can't provide few patches in time.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by DaemonFC View Post
        What do you expect from Nokia? They are Microsoft partners now.
        That was Digia, not Nokia.

        I don't trust Digia at all, simple as that. They are not showing a proper leadership of the project and I'm in doubt they can do it in the way other corporate sponsored projects like WebKit get developed.
        As pointed out, they are not supposed to lead Qt project, (the new) Qt project is an independent meritocratic free software project. Also, Digia is not asking anyone to follow them (nor has anyone any need to "follow" them).

        What Digia does is sell the non-free version to those hundreds of customers who for some reason or another do not want to use the LGPL version. That's why they obtained the business from Nokia, since it's profitable.

        Comment


        • #19
          Freedom? Yes please.

          Originally posted by timofonic View Post
          I just see a crappy bad excuse to not offering the same source, just like Apple does with CUPS and probably LLVM too. They don't follow a true FOSS development model, yet they want FOSS project follow them.
          Yeah. Digia is offering closed "extra value" and thereby screwing the open source spirit. Well nobody would expect this to end in a different way. Nokia and Microsoft are married now and the offspring Digia is getting all the commercial business for Qt.

          And how did Qt become such a crappy anti-freedom lure? Copyright assignment. Count in the numerous patent aggressions from Nokia against linux phone producers you have yourself a nice product to either boycott or fork.

          Qt is not an asset. It is a liability. Leave it or fork it. Considering KDE is a segfaulting piece of c... it might as well just be easier to do a new KDEish desktop without Qt.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
            Yeah. Digia is offering closed "extra value" and thereby screwing the open source spirit. Well nobody would expect this to end in a different way. Nokia and Microsoft are married now and the offspring Digia is getting all the commercial business for Qt.

            And how did Qt become such a crappy anti-freedom lure? Copyright assignment. Count in the numerous patent aggressions from Nokia against linux phone producers you have yourself a nice product to either boycott or fork.

            Qt is not an asset. It is a liability. Leave it or fork it. Considering KDE is a segfaulting piece of c... it might as well just be easier to do a new KDEish desktop without Qt.
            I think you're underestimating the time and effort required to do anything as feature rich as KDE let alone Qt. Qt is IMO one of the best things to ever happen to the FOSS scene not for the ideas behind it but what it's able to do that makes writing applications for Linux far easier and thus more likely to happen.

            What I'm pretty sure happened was that Digia sells a commercial version of Qt that is reliant upon Qt and not the other way around. It's similar to how CrossOver is reliant on Wine yet Wine is not reliant on CrossOver. The only difference is that the names aren't shared. It's not even close to being a big deal.

            p.s. I've never had KDE segfault on me nor is that related to Qt.

            Comment


            • #21
              Ok this thread is now officially left without any quality whatsoever. I (again) didn't remember anymore why I don't visit Phoronix forums, but this is like reading some AMD vs. NVIDIA battlefield on a gamer forum.

              Anyway, in case you want to improve Qt, do it via the Qt Project that now governs it - http://qt-project.org/ - but you probably know that already.

              Edit: Just adding that I do agree that contributor agreements have their problems, but dual-licensing as such is not evil, like just look at Codeweavers stuff.
              Last edited by Timo Jyrinki; 12-16-2011, 10:39 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Timo Jyrinki View Post
                That was Digia, not Nokia.



                As pointed out, they are not supposed to lead Qt project, (the new) Qt project is an independent meritocratic free software project.
                An independent project that requires contributors to sign an agreement that grants:

                to Nokia a sublicensable, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free and fully paid-up copyright and trade secret license to reproduce, adapt, translate, modify, and prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, make available and distribute Licensor Contribution(s) and any derivative works thereof under license terms of Nokia’s choosing.
                Thanks, but no thanks.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
                  An independent project that requires contributors to sign an agreement that grants:



                  Thanks, but no thanks.
                  Chill mate! Within a year they will change it. New wording: "...to Microsoft a sublicensable, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free and fully paid-up copyright and trade secret license to reproduce, adapt, translate, modify, and prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, make available and distribute Licensor Contribution(s) and any derivative works thereof under license terms of Microsofts choosing."

                  Elops best pull of sofar: Talk about qt-project and ripe the copyright while you can! Then screw the contributors all over. It will be the biggest farce of open source in 2012. Naive Nerds contributing to commercialization for Microsoft. You might as well ask the Naive Nerds to dig their own graves.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                    You might as well ask the Naive Nerds to dig their own graves.
                    The slight possibility of Microsoft buying Nokia in no way justifies the cost of forking project like Qt. Even if Microsoft were to buy Nokia; Qt would probably still remain under the same license and therfor there would be no reason to fork it. A cause might come up in the future but as it currently stands Qt is more open than ever and no sane person would wish it to be forked.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Teho View Post
                      The slight possibility of Microsoft buying Nokia in no way justifies the cost of forking project like Qt. Even if Microsoft were to buy Nokia; Qt would probably still remain under the same license and therfor there would be no reason to fork it. A cause might come up in the future but as it currently stands Qt is more open than ever and no sane person would wish it to be forked.
                      They cannot restrict the license, if they try it automatically gets release under an even more permissive BSD license.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                        They cannot restrict the license, if they try it automatically gets release under an even more permissive BSD license.
                        Just in case this is new to someone:
                        The Foundation has a license agreement with Nokia. This agreement ensures that the Qt will continue to be available under both the LGPL 2.1 and the GPL 3. Should Nokia discontinue the development of the Qt Free Edition under these licenses, then the Foundation has the right to release Qt under a BSD-style license or under other open source licenses. The agreement stays valid in case of a buy-out, a merger or bankruptcy.
                        http://www.kde.org/community/whatisk...foundation.php

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I thought the licensing issues were far behind qt. That this differentiation of features came up at all is not a good sign no matter how you apologise for it.

                          BTW, what's the difference in needing C for gtk vs. needing c++ in qt (for non-trivial applications)?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by liam View Post
                            I thought the licensing issues were far behind qt. That this differentiation of features came up at all is not a good sign no matter how you apologise for it.
                            to be pedantic, they are not features, they are bug fixes.

                            Originally posted by liam View Post
                            BTW, what's the difference in needing C for gtk vs. needing c++ in qt (for non-trivial applications)?
                            c++ is an object-oriented programming language. c is not. Both KDE and Qt make extensive use of object-oriented features, making porting to c essentially impossible.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                              to be pedantic, they are not features, they are bug fixes.
                              That might be worse for actual production use, then, but then that's the point of the licensing scheme, right?

                              [QUOTE=TheBlackCat;242328
                              c++ is an object-oriented programming language. c is not. Both KDE and Qt make extensive use of object-oriented features, making porting to c essentially impossible.[/QUOTE]

                              So, there's not really a difference (rather one of preference).
                              As for OO, GIR works pretty well (certainly pygobject and js work well) but for things not yet autogenerated you have to dig into C. This is similar to the issues with QML, from what qt friends have said, but I don't have any first hand knowledge of this.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by liam View Post
                                That might be worse for actual production use, then, but then that's the point of the licensing scheme, right?
                                nope, the point of the licensing scheme is so that businesses or other entities that want to make proprietary changes to Qt for use in their software can, LGPL is for everyone else.

                                edit: I'd link you the licensing page where it says this but it's been moved over to digia which is currently giving a 404
                                Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 12-16-2011, 03:58 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X