The State Of Wayland Support With KDE Frameworks 5, Plasma Next

[pingufunkybeat]

Besides being wrong, you are avoiding the real question. Is the whole Qt covered or is it just the free licensed parts of Qt for a few platforms?

Everything that's ever been released under GPL or LGPL. It clearly says so in the agreement. In other words, everything, including Windows, OSX and Wayland ports.

It's there for everyone to read, you know it, you keep lying although this has been pointed out to you numerous times beyond any doubt.

[pingufunkybeat]

You might want to reread the definitions for "Qt", "Qt Free editon" and "X windows system". Sigh you just proved that KDE did an awful job at communicating what the agreement covers.

The MacOS and Windows ports cannot be relicensed, but they consist of mostly the exact same code as the Linux/X Window/Wayland/Android port, which can be relicensed.

The only thing that can not be relicensed by the agreement is the tiny bit which involves the low-level interface to the Windows API. Which bears no relation to KDE or Linux or Wayland.

You simply don't have a point. You never did.

[erendorn]

The only thing that can not be relicensed by the agreement is the tiny bit which involves the low-level interface to the Windows API. Which bears no relation to KDE or Linux or Wayland.

Which, we should note, will still be available under LGPL, so not that hard to rewrite.

[Luke_Wolf]

Which, we should note, will still be available under LGPL, so not that hard to rewrite.

the thing is.... why bother?

that code as you said is under lgpl so even if digia forks proprietary... the code is already out there and you don't lose rights or access to it just because upstream turned proprietary. The only point of rewriting a backend would be to release it under a more liberal license, or a license matching whatever the KDE Free Qt Foundation decides on. The LGPL-ness of the QPA plugin wouldn't actually "taint" the "BSD-ness" (assuming the KDE Free Qt Foundation chooses BSD for the sake of argument) because that's a feature of the LGPL, and it's encapsulated (IANAL but that's how that license works).

The only benefits to me as a developer using Qt libraries that it(Qt) being BSD as opposed to LGPL would provide is that it would allow:

• Static Linking of the Qt Library
• Ability to make changes to Qt without releasing changes with distribution of binaries

And for point one I still don't have an answer for why I would want to statically link in Qt, and I don't hack on Qt itself so (and I expect the mass majority of Qt Developers are in the same boat as me on that point)... point two has no meaning to me even if for some bizarre reason I wanted to withhold changes (Which why? The application itself being proprietary is understandable to a degree, but there's no point to not releasing changes to Qt).

Also I seriously don't know if the license of the QPA would have any even theoretical impact on me at all, but I'd pretty much imagine not other than maybe iOS because of apple's terms for the app store (that said I don't see the point bothering with iOS nowadays, too much investment into an ecosystem vs return for a developer at a small business or startup).

[TheBlackCat]

Thank you for finally accepting the FACT that the agreement never gave KDE any rights to relicense Qt. It only covers the already free version for a few platforms. You did good. So who still deny these facts?

Repeating the same lie doesn't magically make it true. You know full well the "already free version" is line-for-line identical to the non-free version.

[TheBlackCat]

No they are not identical.

Another blatant lie.

[doom_Oo7]

Another blatant lie.

Actually it is not a lie.

http://qt.digia.com/Product/Qt-Enterprise-Features/

However it's just like if it was another company that made some Qt widgets and decided to sell them (I am pretty sure some do), no one could blame them for this.

[TheBlackCat]

Actually it is not a lie.

http://qt.digia.com/Product/Qt-Enterprise-Features/

However it's just like if it was another company that made some Qt widgets and decided to sell them (I am pretty sure some do), no one could blame them for this.

None of those are part of Qt. It even says that right in the description, that they are "on top of Qt". They are separate, Qt-based libraries that Digia includes with a Qt commercial subscription, but they have never been any more a part of Qt than KDE is.

[doom_Oo7]

None of those are part of Qt. It even says that right in the description, that they are "on top of Qt". They are separate, Qt-based libraries that Digia includes with a Qt commercial subscription, but they have never been any more a part of Qt than KDE is.

I wonder if they get built if you pass the -commercial configure switch when building Qt from source ? Don't have time to do this right now, and could not find an answer on the wiki.

[erendorn]

I wonder if they get built if you pass the -commercial configure switch when building Qt from source ? Don't have time to do this right now, and could not find an answer on the wiki.

I would assume they just don't ship the source for them.