Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45

Thread: Digia Officially Releases Qt 5.0

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote 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.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,766

    Default

    Quote 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

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    579

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,766

    Default

    Quote 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.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Basement
    Posts
    389

    Default

    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.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    Quote 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.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    279

    Default

    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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •