Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qt 4.8 Draws In Platform Abstraction, New WebKit

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
    ... it might as well just be easier to do a new KDEish desktop without Qt.
    Check this s... out. Haven't tested it yet and it's not complete, but I think it's promising. Oh, you wanted one without Qt? Err...umm...enlightenment?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
      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
      Then why not simply use BSD/MIT/Apache/etc and call it a day?
      The kind of dual licensing that is being mentioned here, with different code for each, makes me a bit nervous, and I don't use any qt code-based products. Frankly, it seems a bit opencore-ish.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by liam View Post
        Then why not simply use BSD/MIT/Apache/etc and call it a day?
        The kind of dual licensing that is being mentioned here, with different code for each, makes me a bit nervous, and I don't use any qt code-based products. Frankly, it seems a bit opencore-ish.
        Likely the same reason that they've got the contributor agreement. They want people to use the LGPL licensed one but they currently have a contractual obligation to provide a version under a proprietary license. Hopefully this will change with Qt 5.x series.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
          Considering KDE is a segfaulting piece of c... it might as well just be easier to do a new KDEish desktop without Qt.
          KDE is not gnome that is rewritten every time when it becomes too huge and bloated. KDE's working perfect here.

          Comment


          • #35
            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.
            As far as I know it doesn't have to be bsd license, but it can be GPL as well.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
              KDE is not gnome that is rewritten every time when it becomes too huge and bloated. KDE's working perfect here.
              So, they just rewrite when qt decides to change major versions? Does this occur less often than Gnome rewrites?
              From my experience KDE is less stable than Gnome (KDE3, strangely, was horrible for me -- I don't think it was ever stable enough to be usable with my hw; KDE4 has been better recently, but plasma is still pretty unstable).
              Dick measuring aside, it might be best for the kde community to fork qt for their own good, IF they are large enough, and skilled enough to handle it. KDE doesn't really need to care too much about other platforms, and if they started designing primarily for the linux desktop they might end up with something even more interesting (and less buggy, I would imagine). This is something Gnome has decided to do, and I think it for the best given developer resources.
              What are your thoughts?

              Comment


              • #37
                I don't think there has ever been a full rewrite of KDE. Bits and pieces were rewritten for KDE SC 4, but not the whole thing.

                With Qt switching to an open governance model, and increased modularity in both KDE and Qt, I don't see any advantage to a fork. The things they need in Qt they should have a much easier time pushing there, and if they can't (either because it isn't accepted or because of licensing issues) they can always create their own implementation, subclass, or mini-fork of whatever bits they need while still keeping everything else (KDE actually already does this in a bunch of cases, but they are trying to push those into Qt for Qt 5.0 and KDE frameworks 5). So they can continue using whatever parts of Qt they like, hopefully fix whatever parts are causing problems, and use their own versions if neither of those two options pan out for whatever reason. So what is the advantage of a fork?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by liam View Post
                  Dick measuring aside, it might be best for the kde community to fork qt for their own good, IF they are large enough, and skilled enough to handle it. KDE doesn't really need to care too much about other platforms, and if they started designing primarily for the linux desktop they might end up with something even more interesting (and less buggy, I would imagine).
                  Obviously you've never heard of the KDE on windows http://windows.kde.org/ or KDE on Mac http://community.kde.org/Mac teams, or Plasma Active http://plasma-active.org/ . KDE isn't just going to go on the linux/*BSD desktop, KDE wants to go everywhere, and KDE going everywhere not only helps it's modularization but also brings in new developers to help make it better and more stable, and unlike Gnome, since KDE has Plasma they can actually pull this off with minimal development and maintenance cost with multiple dedicated UXes.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    That's all fine and dandy, but nobody in their right mind is ever going to run KDE on anything other then on a BSD or Linux system. The only people that really care about that sort of thing are KDE developers that run OS X as their main desktops and whatnot.

                    It's nice, but it's not like it really is going to matter much to anybody except a tiny audience.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Qt is portable. If the KDE library's break this portability its harder to get application developer. As I see it, its not important that the desktop is portable but its very important that the libraries is.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        LOL

                        Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
                        Likely the same reason that they've got the contributor agreement. They want people to use the LGPL licensed one but they currently have a contractual obligation to provide a version under a proprietary license. Hopefully this will change with Qt 5.x series.
                        LOL. Nokia was no way forced to make an agreement with Digia! No one is forcing anything on Nokia, they decide for them self. And why is that so? It is because they are entitled to. They get a very broad license when people contribute to Qt. This is not gonna change for 5.0, it will only get worse. This is their business model after all. Talk about freedom, scoop broad license, sell the commerciel opencore stuff through Digia.

                        And no, Digia is NOT sorry about the poor upstream management that left out the "118 additional improvements". Digia is f....ing advertising it!

                        It is official now: The Microsoft strategic partner, Nokia, just allowed closed-source commercial opencore business of Qt.

                        What a dream come true for free software!!!! Just boycott Qt and the willingly from KDE who dont seem to a problem with this. This is ten timse worse than Mono.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                          LOL. Nokia was no way forced to make an agreement with Digia! No one is forcing anything on Nokia, they decide for them self.
                          It was either that or continue to support it themselves. They had contracts with groups to support the closed-source version. They couldn't abandon them without violating their contracts.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            LOL

                            Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                            It was either that or continue to support it themselves. They had contracts with groups to support the closed-source version. They couldn't abandon them without violating their contracts.
                            What a great excuse! "We're sorry for having commercial obligations on our so called "free software". Therefore we hired yet another commercial company to whom we now have a new bunch of obligations."

                            Reality is no-one at Nokia and the former Trolltech cared about free software. Yeah they like the free advertisement from being a formal KDE dependency. But that's about it. Please leave your state of full denial. Qt is a bastard which can never be free unless it is forked.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                              Qt is a bastard which can never be free unless it is forked.
                              Fortunately the actual free software developers have enough common sense not to fork a toolkit that has hundreds of developers and that's used by thousands of applications only to create incompatible and resource consuming beast to annoy packagers and original developers in name of CLA that even though is bit annoying doesn't restrict the use Qt toolkit nor the possibility to fork the it when it actually makes sense.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                LOL

                                It is not lack of common sense. It is the lack og balls and brains. It is evident that a project seeking maximum freedom wont let it self get chained by commercial interests of a single company. Realizing this and acting on this requires more than couch-sitters with interests in keeping their commercial jobs.

                                Linux is doing perfectly fine without a commercial entity to grab all the freedom an neutrality. So please stop your nonsense. Unless your another paid-by from the commercial license?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X