No announcement yet.

The Qt Company Is Tomorrow Moving Qt 5.15 To Its Commercial-Only LTS Phase

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by finalzone View Post

    GTK was made because of similar Qt license issues happened nearly three decades ago .
    I know but it also doesn't invalidate what I said.


    • #92
      Originally posted by Karl Napf View Post
      I seriously doubt that KDE can port from Qt 5 with a lot of QML to Copperspice, a quirky Qt 4 fork with no developers backing it, no QML, limited Qt 4 compatibility. They even removed moc, adding lots of boilerplate markup to the code, taking a hit in compiletime as well as runtime and memory usage and made it impossible to have proper QML bindings.

      Them doing their own maintenance branch of Qt is way more likely and way, way less work.
      Agreed. CopperSpice != Qt. CopperSpice may have started from some Qt code, but CopperSpice is it's own framework at this point, largely incompatible with existing Qt code. I briefly looked at CopperSpice a while back and was just not impressed enough to migrate my code to it. Especially since CopperSpice was missing a lot of modules that I actually use (such as the Chromium based QtWebEngine).

      By making CopperSpice incompatible with Qt, they've forced me to make a "Go or No Go" decision, which inevitably results in "No Go" since CopperSpice is less complete than Qt.

      A real Qt fork should try to maintain compatibility with existing Qt code as much as possible. It should be whatever bone the Qt Company lets us have, plus whatever bug fixes or improvements the community has come up with on top of whatever the Qt Company gave us. Then the decision to use the Qt fork vs using the Qt Company's last open source Qt release becomes a no brainer.

      Only when the Qt Company stops contributing to open source entirely should we start considering making changes that break compatibility with the Qt Company releases.
      Last edited by ed31337; 07 January 2021, 02:29 AM.


      • #93
        I've been using Qt for my open source project for many years now, and here's my humble opinion.
        Raising money in open source is not an issue, if you have the proper reasons.

        I proposed them a few years ago to do "crowfunded bug fixing". They didn't listen.
        Crowdfunding in general could be the way. Let's say target 100000$ a year, means average 10$ a year for 10000 users. That would sound much more reasonable.
        I would myself be willing to fund them with a small contribution every year. In the end they allow me to write my application.

        But no. Their problem is a bloated infrastructure with 1000 managers and 10 developers. They should fix this first. Get rid of useless people in the company and crowdfund REAL developers that actually listen to who funds them.


        • #94
          Originally posted by ed31337 View Post
          Especially since CopperSpice was missing a lot of modules that I actually use (such as the Chromium based QtWebEngine).
          It is important that we clear up a few misconceptions. CopperSpice is a set of libraries which was derived from Qt 4.8 and it has matured, just like any other project. We have incorporated many of the classes from Qt 5 as well as adding new classes and functionality not available in their product. Our intention and motivation is to develop CS as a set of libraries which support C++ development.

          We are dedicated to being a true open source project and welcome user contributions. If there is class or module you believe is missing and this is impacting your project, contact us.

          Simply put, we did not add QtWebEngine to CopperSpice since the license is LGPL 3 and CS is LGPL 2.1, which is a conflict. Any classes or modules which are LGPL 2.1 (or more permissive such as BSD) are fair game.

          We are happy to discuss adding a "QML" like library which is done well and supports C++ bi-directionally. Any developer who wants to be part of this endeavor should reach out to us.

          The opinion of the CopperSpice team is that a fork should be done to advance a project, not keep it the same. Contrary to what someone posted, we have developers and companies supporting this project and more are joining all the time.

          CopperSpice is royalty free, will never be closed source, and we offer a support policy for those companies who wish to help guide the development process.

          Thanks to everyone who is looking at CopperSpice and we value this discussion.