Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trolltech Is No More, Hello Qt Software

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

  • Trolltech Is No More, Hello Qt Software

    Phoronix: Trolltech Is No More, Hello Qt Software

    Trolltech, the Norwegian company behind the Qt GUI framework, is no more. Earlier this year it was announced that Nokia is acquiring Trolltech and they have now decided they don't like the names Trolltech or Qtopia...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=Njc1NQ

  • #2
    RIP Trolltech

    R.I.P. Trolltech... I REALLY liked that name :-(

    I really hope that Nokia won't restructure everything Trolltech is doing ... part of their image is imo that they are really cool guys and have some freeness and spare time in their jobs for projects they want to do... and their name was another sign for their philosophie...

    Well.. time will tell..

    Comment


    • #3
      Seems like corporate crap has already begun showing its ill effects. "Qt Software" is boring. "Trolltech" was cool. "Qt Extended" is just stupid. "QTopia" way better. Why on earth would they kill off these brand names ? Sad middle-aged upper-management men in suits are calling the shots now. I just hope the guys doing the *real work* will be appreciated for their passion and skill, and that they will be able to continue working on making Qt one of the best open-source cross-platform frameworks for software development. But who knows what will happen when Nokia decides it doesn't profit enough off of the non-embedded world.

      Comment


      • #4
        I am starting to worry about my project coder making us switch to Qt from GTK+...

        Comment


        • #5
          Yeah, 'corporate crap' has started and all - heading to GPLv3 for Qt is certainly some corporate crap...
          Oh please, stop this FUD already - it's just name change.
          And everyone who think "Qt Software" is boring name certainly doesn't see the clever word play - you know - at Trolltech, Qt is spelled in a bit 'cute' way
          Last edited by reavertm; 09-30-2008, 10:08 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Wake me up when QT is _L_GPL.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by hubick View Post
              Wake me up when QT is _L_GPL.
              I'm curious: Why LGPL?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mlau View Post
                I'm curious: Why LGPL?
                I draw two lines:
                1) Between the platform and the applications.
                2) Between the general purpose and the specialized.

                The platform (1) consists of the software libraries and API's needed to construct and execute the majority of applications. General applications (2) are those types which the majority of people use - web browsers, email clients, music players and such.

                Personally, I first and foremost demand a platform where the libraries needed by most applications are available for anyone to use in their applications and modify to suit their needs (the freedoms of Free Software). My second demand is that all general purpose applications used by the majority of people also be Free/Open.

                Where I differ is that I do not demand absolutely *all* applications and libraries be Open Source - if someone wants to earn a living by writing and selling a closed source library or application catering to a specialized niche market, then I think they should be able to do so, and I think they should be able to do so while utilizing the general purpose platform libraries at no cost - as long as any improvements or changes to the libraries themselves are returned to the community.

                LGPL libraries allow for closed source applications, whereas GPL libraries force applications linking with them to be Open Source. If you want to write closed source software with QT, you have to pay the gatekeeper a significant sum of money - whereas you can do it with GTK for free.

                As an aside, I also think fragmentation is bad - I think the whole community should rally behind improving a single LGPL framework like GTK which is free for everyone to use and can be happily shared by all, rather than split efforts between maintaining both GTK and QT.
                Last edited by hubick; 10-01-2008, 02:54 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by hubick View Post
                  I draw two lines:
                  1) Between the platform and the applications.
                  2) Between the general purpose and the specialized.

                  The platform (1) consists of the software libraries and API's needed to construct and execute the majority of applications. General applications (2) are those types which the majority of people use - web browsers, email clients, music players and such.

                  Personally, I first and foremost demand a platform where the libraries needed by most applications are available for anyone to use in their applications and modify to suit their needs (the freedoms of Free Software). My second demand is that all general purpose applications used by the majority of people also be Free/Open.

                  Where I differ is that I do not demand absolutely *all* applications and libraries be Open Source - if someone wants to earn a living by writing and selling a closed source library or application catering to a specialized niche market, then I think they should be able to do so, and I think they should be able to do so while utilizing the general purpose platform libraries at no cost - as long as any improvements or changes to the libraries themselves are returned to the community.

                  LGPL libraries allow for closed source applications, whereas GPL libraries force applications linking with them to be Open Source. If you want to write closed source software with QT, you have to pay the gatekeeper a significant sum of money - whereas you can do it with GTK for free.

                  As an aside, I also think fragmentation is bad - I think the whole community should rally behind improving a single LGPL framework like GTK which is free for everyone to use and can be happily shared by all, rather than split efforts between maintaining both GTK and QT.
                  Unfortunately lgpl means that people who want to develop closed source apps don't have to pay trolltech (whoops Nokia). So where do the funds for developing the toolkit come from? The reason why Qt is more advanced than Gtk and that reason is that the people developing it get a return on their investment.

                  Unfortunately The non glamorous stuff (and frankly really difficult) under linux (minus the kernel) is pretty much permanently under resourced. Qt is not because it is dual licensed.

                  Frankly, if you're developing commercial closed apps then you should pay to use the toolkit, also, if you're using Qt internally (not planning to sell the app) then you're not required to pay as you're not distributing code.

                  Basically what you're saying is that it is ok for the app developer to make money from his app whilst using the work the toolkit developers put in and the toolkit developers are not allowed to make money off their own work?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    _txf_ pretty much said what I came here to say.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Frankly, if you're developing commercial closed apps then you should pay to use the toolkit, also, if you're using Qt internally (not planning to sell the app) then you're not required to pay as you're not distributing code.
                      What if you are developing an open and free app that you want to release under a BSD-style license? Not possible under the GPL; possible under the LGPL. Hubick's point is quite valid.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Then you use another toolkit simple as that. You can't have every scenario covered under every mixture of license. I would love to have zfs support in the kernel but it ain't gonna happen. However there are exceptions to the QT licenses.

                        Nokia Corporation Qt GPL Exception Version 1.3

                        Additional rights granted beyond the GPL (the "Exception").

                        As a special exception to the terms and conditions of GPL version 2.0 or GPL version 3.0, Nokia Corporation hereby grants you the rights described below, provided you agree to the terms and conditions in this Exception, including its obligations and restrictions on use.

                        Nothing in this Exception gives you or anyone else the right to change the licensing terms of the Qt Open Source Edition.

                        Below, "Licensed Software" shall refer to the software licensed under the GPL version 2.0 or GPL version 3.0 and this exception.

                        1) The right to use open source licenses not compatible with the GNU General Public License version 2.0 or GNU General Public License version 3.0: You may link software (hereafter referred to as "Your Software") against the Licensed Software and/or distribute binaries of Your Software linked against the Licensed Software, provided that:

                        A) Your Software is licensed under one of the following licenses:

                        License name Version(s)/Copyright Date
                        Academic Free License 2.0, 2.1, 3.0
                        Apache Software License 1.0 or 1.1
                        Apache License 2.0
                        Apple Public Source License 2.0
                        Artistic license (as set forth in the addendum file)
                        BSD license "July 22 1999"
                        Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) 1.0
                        Common Public License 1.0
                        Eclipse Public License 1.0
                        GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL) 2.0, 2.1, 3.0
                        Jabber Open Source License 1.0
                        MIT License (as set forth in the addendum file)
                        Mozilla Public License (MPL) 1.0 or 1.1
                        Open Software License 2.0, 3.0
                        OpenSSL license (with original SSLeay license) "2003" ("1998")
                        PHP License 3.0
                        Python license (CNRI Python License) (as set forth in the addendum file)
                        Python Software Foundation License 2.1.1
                        Q Public License 1.0
                        Sleepycat License "1999"
                        W3C License "2001"
                        X11 License X11R6.6
                        Zlib/libpng License (as set forth in the addendum file)
                        Zope Public License 2.0, 2.1

                        (Licenses without a specific version number or date are reproduced in the file GPL_Exception_Addendum.txt in your source package).

                        and

                        B) You must, on request, make a complete package including the complete source code of Your Software (as defined in the GNU General Public License version 2, section 3, but excluding anything excluded by the special exception in the same section) available to Nokia Corporation under the same license as that granted to other recipients of the source code of Your Software.

                        and

                        C) Your or any other contributor's rights to:

                        i) distribute the source code of Your Software to anyone for any purpose;

                        and

                        ii) publicly discuss the development project for Your Software and its goals in any form and in any forum are not prohibited by any legal instrument, including but not limited to contracts, non-disclosure agreements, and employee contracts.

                        2) The right to link non-open source applications with pre-installed versions of the Licensed Software: You may link applications with binary pre-installed versions of the Licensed Software, provided that such applications have been developed and are deployed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Qt Commercial License Agreement.
                        http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license...xceptions.html
                        Last edited by deanjo; 10-01-2008, 06:58 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                          What if you are developing an open and free app that you want to release under a BSD-style license? Not possible under the GPL; possible under the LGPL. Hubick's point is quite valid.
                          It is unfortunate, and any license not matter what will have its pros and cons. Ultimately I think the way TT has done it is the most pragmatic way to be fair to themselves and to us (the free software community).

                          Whilst Hubrick's point is valid, his example was closed source which implies he wasn't thinking about BSD either.

                          edit: looking at Deanjo's comment, it appears you can indeed link bsd licensed code against Qt.
                          Last edited by _txf_; 10-01-2008, 07:36 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If you can take BSD code and make it closed source (Apple does this) why can't you take it and make it GPL?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                              If you can take BSD code and make it closed source (Apple does this) why can't you take it and make it GPL?
                              The BSD derived code is still opensource and freely downloadable from Apple's developer site. Proprietary IP that was created internally and not derived from existing opsensource code can be opensourced or kept closed.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X