Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Digia Officially Releases Qt 5.0

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    In a broader meaning as in your original post "make world better" (by programming for free).
    No, what I meant is make the world better by making software free. The RMS POV here is that you should also ensure that the software *stays* free. With Qt's CLA, this isn't guaranteed. Your code can become non-free. And this can make you look like cheap labor, because what you're trying to do is create free software, but what you end up with is non-free software where you're not getting paid for your work.

    Comment


    • #17
      With Qt's CLA, this isn't guaranteed. Your code can become non-free. And this can make you look like cheap labor, because what you're trying to do is create free software, but what you end up with is non-free software where you're not getting paid for your work.
      Yeah. It was the same way in nazi-german labor camps.

      Arbeit macht frei*

      *Disclaimer: Freedom NOT guaranteed.

      Nobody shouls sign the Digias Arbeit macht frei licens clause. And it is just rude to se people suggest it is not forced upon any devs. If you dont sign you are excluded for particioating and contributing. Yeah thats rigt open sourcers are told they can take their hippie GPL pipe dream somewhere else. Nice on Digia. But who cares about Digias Anti-freedom spree anyway? It is not like they treat linux desktop as its primary goal anyway. They are "diversifing" to other platforms and segments where linux hippies are not an issue. Of course we will never lose the Qt-crowd, they will hang around and keep telling people to trust in who ever owns Qt. I would rather buy a lottery ticket.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
        Yeah. It was the same way in nazi-german labor camps.

        Arbeit macht frei*

        *Disclaimer: Freedom NOT guaranteed.

        Nobody shouls sign the Digias Arbeit macht frei licens clause. And it is just rude to se people suggest it is not forced upon any devs. If you dont sign you are excluded for particioating and contributing. Yeah thats rigt open sourcers are told they can take their hippie GPL pipe dream somewhere else. Nice on Digia. But who cares about Digias Anti-freedom spree anyway? It is not like they treat linux desktop as its primary goal anyway. They are "diversifing" to other platforms and segments where linux hippies are not an issue. Of course we will never lose the Qt-crowd, they will hang around and keep telling people to trust in who ever owns Qt. I would rather buy a lottery ticket.
        Just leaving this here.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
          Yeah. It was the same way in nazi-german labor camps.

          Arbeit macht frei*
          BWAHAHAHAHA.

          Now Qt is a concentration camp.

          It keeps getting better.

          Comment


          • #20
            Really guys, such stupid comments on such a great product.
            This new Qt version is truly a awesome piece of technology!

            Also, Nokia had mobile as it's main focus, Digia certainly hasn't! They are just broad focused and right now mainly in getting it into shape for Android, iOS and Windows Phone. Remember, the goal of Qt is use the same application with the same code on as much platforms as possible. Mac, Linux and Windows are very well supported so they simply expand to those other ones. And don't forget, BB10 is full Qt!

            Qt 5.1 (or 5.2) is going to feature a full set of QML components specifically aimed at desktop usage, something that would be very welcome! Then full application development in QML for the desktop still has a lot of issues, but people are working in that area as well (like application wide shortcut support in QML which is currently not in Qt, but can be used with QtWidgets)

            So please, stop your idiotic comments and just be on the subject: Qt 5.

            Comment


            • #21
              I'd like to see the QT libraries make it a goal to refactor and reduce their code base to about 20% (or whatever) of what it currently is. Come up with smarter more orthogonal ways of doing things rather than pile more and more stuff together.

              Comment


              • #22
                Qt5, Wayland, QML2, QtQuick on the Jolla mobile phone. That will be a game changer #2. #1 will be the jolla phone as it is released with X11 / Qt4.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
                  Qt5, Wayland, QML2, QtQuick on the Jolla mobile phone. That will be a game changer #2. #1 will be the jolla phone as it is released with X11 / Qt4.
                  Jolla = closed source with a shit load of patents, Qt = CLA to steal external contributor copyright. If you fancy shit like this, go buy a mac and an iphone.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    These tinfoil hat discussions have been going on since Qt first started.
                    That's 20 years of people preaching doom and gloom with Qt yet its still here and still the most practical open source framework for cross platform development.
                    Literally, every single time there has been even a small change to Qt people freak out. Its honestly become comical to watch.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                      Jolla = closed source with a shit load of patents, Qt = CLA to steal external contributor copyright. If you fancy shit like this, go buy a mac and an iphone.
                      Sailfish is almost completely open source and without patents you can't survive in the mobile market. Qt's CLA also doesn't require copyright assigment.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by markg85 View Post
                        So please, stop your idiotic comments and just be on the subject: Qt 5.
                        I call this idiotic. Excuse me.

                        http://qt.digia.com/Product/Licensin...se-Comparison/

                        "Protection for end user being freely available to modify Qt within your application or device - and from delivering end user the needed tools do so"

                        If this is not OpenCore, I don't know what is.

                        Commercial assistance would be ok.
                        Customized qt would be ok.
                        Support priority would be ok.

                        This above is NOT OK. The above is like - give us money and you can rape RMS. This is clearly double standard, with money NOT used for support, but for hindering, closing and misusing opensource team.

                        Also, I have found in my previous posts, that they ARE replacing code LGPL code with other code - very probably BSD. Qt is dead for me. At least most applications I use are opensource, which means they are portable to other framework.

                        Originally posted by Teho View Post
                        Sailfish is almost completely open source and without patents you can't survive in the mobile market. Qt's CLA also doesn't require copyright assigment.
                        Drop your bullshit sir, Wikipedia page says its proprietary.

                        Regarding patents - one can issue "Defensive publication" to make the technology public and invalid for patenting, but yes, many patents are already held and one needs access to patent pool.
                        Last edited by crazycheese; 12-19-2012, 05:56 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Teho View Post
                          Qt's CLA also doesn't require copyright assigment.
                          It requires assignment of key rights otherwise associated with copyright. Namely, the right to relicense. When you've got that, then you don't care who the copyright belongs to. The copyright is then reduced to just a cosmetic detail; giving credit to whomever wrote the code.

                          When you agree to the CLA, you effectively give up the rights that copyright gives you. Which might be just fine with you. It's subjective and people decide for themselves whether this is OK or not.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                            Also, I have found in my previous posts, that they ARE replacing code LGPL code with other code - very probably BSD. Qt is dead for me. At least most applications I use are opensource, which means they are portable to other framework.
                            You seem to be confusing "using Qt" with "contributing to Qt."

                            It's still open source and you've got it under the LGPL license. No one can take that away from you. You've got all rights granted by the LGPL and no one can stop you from exercising those rights.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                              rop your bullshit sir, Wikipedia page says its proprietary.
                              Yes because everything that's written in Wikipedia is true... Sailfish is based on Linux/glibc/systemd/X11/PulseAudio/GStreamer/ConnMann/oFono/Qt/Maliit/Nemo/Mer... only thing that might be propietary is the end user applications but even that is not set in stone.

                              Originally posted by RealNC
                              It requires assignment of key rights otherwise associated with copyright. Namely, the right to relicense. When you've got that, then you don't care who the copyright belongs to. The copyright is then reduced to just a cosmetic detail; giving credit to whomever wrote the code.
                              What do you mean?

                              The Qt Project doesn’t require a copyright or other IP assignment for contributions submitted and each person retains ownership of the code as well as related IP they create. Ownership of code or related IP is not transferred. The Qt Project does require a contribution agreement (i.e. license) in benefit of Qt, so that Digia can continue to meet the spirit of its existing commitments, such as those owed to the KDE Free Qt Foundation and commercial users of Qt.
                              Because you own the copyright to your own code you can relicence it as you see fit. Only Digia has the right to relicence the code of other people than themselves though.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Teho View Post
                                What do you mean?

                                Because you own the copyright to your own code you can relicence it as you see fit. Only Digia has the right to relicence the code of other people than themselves though.
                                Owning the copyright means owning the rights to your work, meaning owning an *exclusive* right to relicense your code. Normally, only he copyright owner has that right. The CLA allows Digia to relicense your code which is normally only possible by the copyright owner.

                                So still having the copyright to your code doesn't mean much since you can't control what they do with it. They can do anything they wish with it. The effect is the same as assigning them the copyright.

                                Note how this is in tandem with the BSD license. But Digia doesn't offer Qt under the BSD. They offer it under the LGPL. Of course that's because Digia doesn't want to give contributors the same rights contributors give to Digia. That would be bad for business. It's pretty much an abuse of the LGPL. But only from a contributor's point of view. From the user's perspective, you're dealing with LGPL code. You can modify it and redistribute it as you see fit. The only thing you can't do is having your code accepted upstream. So if you have large modifications, you would need to fork Qt and maintain those modifications there yourself and keep everything LGPL.
                                Last edited by RealNC; 12-19-2012, 06:23 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X