your point?? that link is just an commercial add on that happens to use QT!!! and check calligra they have some nice chart coding done too (is kde/Qt API), digia can do whatever the hell they want with their propietary licensed version of QT what they can't do is hide/remove/delete/prohibit/etc the use of the LGPL one that is hosted in qt-project.org. So they responsability and (best of interest) is to keep the core libraries synced but no one really care if they keep some fancy or unused(by the OSS side) features alive between releases to please propietary apps that need more time to migrate their apps, so i wouldn't care if they keep qtquick 1.0 (for example) alive in qt5 commercial version.
Originally Posted by funkSTAR
so is not like there is 1 version of QT in fact is 2 one maintained by nokia/community/digia in qt-project.org and another private in digia wich they sync back from qt-project.org, so in the worst case scenario we don't even have to fork since they can't touch qt-project.org so don't worry
Thank you for proving my point; The Qt ecosystem is indeed infected by non free components. In fact Digia is basing their business on being non free. And anyone signing the CLA is contributing to this.
But I guess thats fine by most Qt contributors anyway. They are assigning all your rights to Mr Elop and smiling at the same time. They looove him
i can't tell if you are trolling or .... but ok lets make it more clear
Originally Posted by funkSTAR
QT4/5 LGPL: used by KDE, linux distros, windows & mac(LGPL version), symbian, and other ports are not on Digia and i mean not in their servers not in their office not in their tablets not under their control this QT4/5 are hosted openly in Gitoriuos and qt-project.org and the contributors are mainly QT enthusiast, Nokia, KDE developers and some Digia guys.
QT4/5 Commercial: hosted/compiled/supported by digia is externally at gitorious and qt-project.org, so they basically sync their git repo with the open one in gitorious every once in a while and any change done to the LGPL code must be synced back to gitorious as LGPL dictates, they only buyed from nokia an alternate license that allows digia clients to use QT as closed source but Digia must sync back their changes just not their clients[digia customers are free to contribute directly the open git repo directly though] but neither the community/nokia/[fit here] forbid digia to make commercial apps based on QT, aka like any company their are free to code whatever the hell app they want using QT what they can't[or should not] do is break the ABI or refuse to sync back changes to the main[LGPL] tree of the core libraries.
even easier QT4/5 is the framework base code [where nokia/digia/community work togheter and all is synced back, after all is idiotic have a framework where everyone has a different ABI/API cuz is just stop being a framework] and for example those charts is an external absolutely unrelated/uncovered/private product based on the Qt framework hence digia has 0 need to open source it cuz is not/was not/never was/never will be part of the Qt framework.clear enough??
is like demand ktorrent and varicad to sync their code back to gitorious because both used Qt framework LOL or demand Adobe to open source their Adobe Reader X cuz they use the Gtk libraries, get the concept?? now if Adobe modify the gtk libraries they have to opensource those changes back to the gtk project wich is an entirely different matter and a lawyer would explain it better [bitter IANAL licence flame wars could hijack the thread]
Originally Posted by jrch2k8
The worry I would have if I were a KDE user/dev would be the possibility that digia/nokia stops releasing further updates to Qt under a oss license. Now, it might not matter a great deal if a significant number of commits to Qt were coming from the community, but II don't know if that's the case since no one responded to my previous question.
Maintaining and furthering a toolkit, and especially one as complicated as Qt, is a massive job.
Last edited by liam; 07-25-2012 at 08:28 PM.
Maintaining Qt wouldn't be particularly more work than maintaining glib, which the Gnome community seems to have no trouble doing. The fact that nokia funds development for Qt is really just icing on the cake.
Originally Posted by liam
Maintenence isn't the issue (though I think it would be stretching the kde devs to continue supporting as many platforms as they do) it's the new development that has to happen that's the potential problem. According to the qt wiki on the new governance model, the assumptions had been that nearly all code was contributed by either the owners of QT or contractors. If that was the case then the community doesn't have a history of significant code contribution, let alone serious new development that qt has been known for.
Originally Posted by ShadowBane
Exactly what liam said. The chart example above is just a preview of what can happen.
Qt open won't be very useful if all the new features are commercial only.
That is legally impossible. Most new features need to be integrated into Qt proper, since they will involve modifications to the existing code. This is why pretty much all of Digia's work is part of the open-source Qt release.
Originally Posted by curaga
If you are really concerned about a single add-on for Qt being proprietary, keep in mind there are easily dozens, if not hundreds, of open-source add-ons for Qt. Even if you exclude KDE, which is responsible for most of them, and dozens of add-ons released by Qt directly, you still have things like qwt, pyside, pyqt4, and many other independent, open-source add-ons for Qt. So one add-on being closed source is hardly a significant fraction.
exactly my point, what we need is the core Qt libraries and i believe in the worst case scenario KDE team can handle Qt good enough after all they are the biggest consumer of the libraries but i seriously doubt this will happen cuz digia only handle the commercial support of Qt and in the case that digia wanna go rougue im pretty sure intel and nokia will stay making digia's Qt worthless[like i said no one will pay support for a framework where there is 2 different API/ABI and most likely this bussiness will switch or return to the FOSS version since it has the bigger guns]
Originally Posted by TheBlackCat
Historically most of KDE's work has gone into kdelibs, with the restructuring in KDE5 part of what KDE is doing is working more closely with Qt to push the stuff that is useful outside of KDE into Qt instead of keeping it for themselves. Historically it was more difficult for KDE to help out like this but with the new open governance model KDE is taking a more active role in Qt devleopment.
Originally Posted by liam
Tags for this Thread