Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45

Thread: Digia Officially Releases Qt 5.0

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    206

    Default

    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.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    179

    Default

    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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Basement
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote 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.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    114

    Default

    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.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    593

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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 at 05:56 PM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    593

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    Quote 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 at 06:23 PM.

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
  •