Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Digia Officially Releases Qt 5.0

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

  • Digia Officially Releases Qt 5.0

    Phoronix: Digia Officially Releases Qt 5.0

    Digia has officially released the Qt 5.0 tool-kit...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI1Njg

  • #2
    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Digia Officially Releases Qt 5.0

    Digia has officially released the Qt 5.0 tool-kit...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI1Njg
    The three major bugs is still there.

    1) Unfair licensing policies for contributions.
    2) Increasing lack of focus on Linux.
    3) Increasing lack of focus on the desktop.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
      The three major bugs is still there.

      1) Unfair licensing policies for contributions.
      2) Increasing lack of focus on Linux.
      3) Increasing lack of focus on the desktop.
      Could you elaborate on these points?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by BitRot View Post
        Could you elaborate on these points?
        1) If you want to contribute, you are required to allow Digia to include your code in proprietary releases of Qt. If you don't want your code to be sold in a closed-down, proprietary manner, you are not allowed to contribute code to Qt.

        2) Qt is trying to improve support for other platforms so that they reach the same level of support as they have with Linux. Some people see this as "lack of focus on Linux."

        3) There's an effort going on to make Qt run better on Android and QNX. Some people see this as "lack of focus on the Desktop."

        4) funkSTAR is our resident anti-KDE and anti-Qt troll. ;-)
        Last edited by RealNC; 12-19-2012, 12:43 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by RealNC View Post
          1) If you want to contribute, you are required to allow Digia to include your code in proprietary releases of Qt. If you don't want your code to be sold in a closed-down, proprietary manner, you are not allowed to contribute code to Qt.

          2) Qt is trying to improve support for other platforms so that they reach the same level of support as they have with Linux. Some people see this as "lack of focus on Linux."

          3) There's an effort going on to make Qt run better on Android and QNX. Some people see this as "lack of focus on the Desktop."

          4) funkSTAR is our resident anti-KDE and anti-Qt troll. ;-)
          Ah, OK.
          Thanks for the heads-up ;-)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BitRot View Post
            Could you elaborate on these points?
            It is not GNOME, so he hates it.

            That will help you understand all of his other posts too. He is really consistent.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by RealNC View Post
              1) If you want to contribute, you are required to allow Digia to include your code in proprietary releases of Qt. If you don't want your code to be sold in a closed-down, proprietary manner, you are not allowed to contribute code to Qt.
              Can you show me the source of the claim please?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                Can you show me the source of the claim please?
                Here goes:

                http://qt-project.org/legal.html

                The agreement itself:

                http://qt-project.org/legal/QtContri...eAgreement.pdf

                The meat of the issue is this term, in the emphasized text:

                Licensor hereby grants, in exchange for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, to Digia 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 Digia’s choosing including any Open Source Software license.
                Some people think that this was only due to KDE's agreement with Trolltech/Nokia/Digia to release Qt under a BSD license in case Qt was to be closed down. But this isn't the case. The agreement allows Digia to license code under *any* license, not just another Open Source license.

                However, the effect of the KDE Free Qt Foundation agreement is pretty much the same. If the code can be relicensed under BSD, that pretty much means it can than be put in closed source software.

                So the bottom line is: if you don't want your code to be BSD-style licensed and turn up using a proprietary license, you don't contribute to Qt. I suspect this would affect mostly people who are not getting paid for writing code, since this makes them look like idiots who work for free, while what they want is contributing to "make the world better" from an RMS point of view.
                Last edited by RealNC; 12-19-2012, 01:14 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                  Dafuq: "As the Qt Project desires to facilitate the broadest Qt ecosystem and given that LGPL-only licensed code hinders participation by some Qt commercial users, the Qt Project is actively working to reduce Qt’s dependencies on LGPL-only licensed code. "

                  So, Digia actively replaces GPL with BSD or MIT license?..

                  Thats nice!

                  First Nokia, now Qt. Keep it up!


                  Indeed. Qt is starting to die with version 5.0.
                  Last edited by crazycheese; 12-19-2012, 01:01 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                    So, Digia actively replaces GPL with BSD or MIT license?..
                    No it doesn't. They want to have CLA on as much of the LGPL licenced code as possible so they can have them as part of their Qt Commercial offering. That means that companies that have Qt Commercial licence do not have to release changes the way LGPL would otherwise require. I don't think any of the upstream Qt libaries are licenced under BSD or MIT and I don't see any reason why Digia would ever want to use them either as it would only mean that they would lose their privilege over the Qt code.

                    I don't see any signs of Qt dying either as Qt 5.0 was developed by over 400 people.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                      So the bottom line is: if you don't want your code to be BSD-style licensed and turn up using a proprietary license, you don't contribute to Qt. I suspect this would affect mostly people who are not getting paid for writing code, since this makes them look like idiots who work for free, while what they want is contributing to "make the world better" from an RMS point of view.
                      License has no attachment to money. RMS never claimed one should contribute to "make the world better" (!)
                      Contribution always is connected to development costs.
                      If the developer is interested in result, the price is his skill and time.
                      If the developer is not interested in result, he should charge money.

                      Please show me even one consumer who will resist to pay for opensource contribution?

                      The difference is that opensource solution will profit from cross development, reducing amount of "bicycle inventions", patent suits and wars, increase security by more pass-thru's --- pretty much all advantages of opensource model.

                      But the scheme to mis-use (expoit) developer time was never part of RMS idea.
                      If one is to make money off the development time of others, he should be legally obligated to compensate it to them.

                      I never thought KDE and Qt are this stupid....

                      Maybe its a very good idea to start a toolkit similar to Qt from scratch.

                      Maybe RMS releases GPLv5 where he addresses this case.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                        License has no attachment to money.
                        I never said otherwise.


                        RMS never claimed one should contribute to "make the world better"
                        http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                          I never thought KDE and Qt are this stupid....
                          Stupid in what way? Because they use practical licences that actually work? I'm pretty sure that most developers actually like their code being used. If you start a licence that has absolutely ridiculous requirements then no one is going to use that software. It already hurts GPLv3 and your hypothetical GPLv5 would be used by absoltely no one.

                          Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                          But the scheme to mis-use (expoit) developer time was never part of RMS idea.
                          Please explain. How is it "exploitation" if people willingly agree to it? People choose to licence their projects under BSD because they like its terms and if they didn't they would use something else. It's similar situation when one contributes to project that is under CLA. If they don't like it they can maintain their own CLA-free fork and push their patches only there.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                            In a broader meaning as in your original post "make world better" (by programming for free).
                            GPL makes world better by removing restrictions = restricting restrictions.

                            No one should make world better by denying income for the work. This is sure way to die, which means less software, which in turn means worse world.

                            Originally posted by gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
                            “Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?”

                            There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to maximize one's income, as long as one does not use means that are destructive. But the means customary in the field of software today are based on destruction.

                            Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity derives from the program. When there is a deliberate choice to restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.

                            The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer from the mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule. Since I do not like the consequences that result if everyone hoards information, I am required to consider it wrong for one to do so. Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that creativity.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Teho View Post
                              Stupid in what way? Because they use practical licences that actually work? I'm pretty sure that most developers actually like their code being used. If you start a licence that has absolutely ridiculous requirements then no one is going to use that software. It already hurts GPLv3 and your hypothetical GPLv5 would be used by absoltely no one.

                              Please explain. How is it "exploitation" if people willingly agree to it? People choose to licence their projects under BSD because they like its terms and if they didn't they would use something else. It's similar situation when one contributes to project that is under CLA. If they don't like it they can maintain their own CLA-free fork and push their patches only there.
                              Hello, Teho!

                              I will gladly explain it to you.

                              The fee is 500,000$ for exclusive one-time non-transferable license to read the explanation (WITH EXPLICITLY NO WARRANTIES!).

                              Best regards.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X