Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More Open-Source Participants Are Backing A Possible Fork Of Qt

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    this all sounds very strange to me i read all the posts and all the arguments but still how in hell something like this could happen ...

    and i have very different theory how this happens and i have very different background Intel.

    the cabale who funded the controlled opposition to a true FLOSS without CLA had no problem funds its subversive activity years ago and now they magically run out of money and their puppets run out of money.

    in my knowledge X22 report and other to "Q anon" related Intel sources pointed to the fact that the cabale lost control over the US FED central bank. the Earth Allianz and the Gnostic Illuminati paid 2 trillion gold backed dollars to take over the FED.

    this means the cabale is no longer able to fund its subversive puppets by just printing FIAT money dollars. and this fact end up in the lag of money for companies like the Qt Company.

    but to be honest this Qt people are just as much Victims as the true "FLOSS without CLA" people in this game. there where used as controlled opposition and now their masters pushing them in front of a fast moving bus.

    my advice is do not talk with them about about forking QT or not forking QT because a fork in fact will have a disastrous outcome for these people. I promise you all this will end in a disaster.

    why not sell this Qt company to IBM/Redhat or ask the Linux foundation and then instead of subversive activity and controlled opposition they can start do real work to the benefit for all.
    You wanted an explanation of why you were warned? This almost certainly is the sort of thing that prompted that.

    It's so divorced from other users' perception of reality that, unless you can provide some citations, it just comes across as unhinged ranting that is functionally equivalent to trolling and merely serves to annoy other users and clutter up the discussion.

    Here are some of the things I recommend either providing citations for or shutting up about:
    • That "the cabale who funded the controlled opposition to a true FLOSS" exists.
    • That discussion of fiat currency has any relevance to this discussion.
    • That there's any kind of secretive conspiracy at play.
    To be perfectly frank, as-is, you just come across as someone who needs psychiatric help.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
      [*]That there's any kind of secretive conspiracy at play.[/LIST]To be perfectly frank, as-is, you just come across as someone who needs psychiatric help.
      no one need to proof a secretive conspiracy against FLOSS because it was proofen a long time ago:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents
      this is from 1998....
      this CLA-WAR to use FOSS slaves to transform their work into closed source is just the ongoing war against FLOSS.

      who need to proof a secretive conspiracy against FLOSS if it is proofen fact since 1998? it is 22 years ago.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post

        no one need to proof a secretive conspiracy against FLOSS because it was proofen a long time ago:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents
        this is from 1998....
        this CLA-WAR to use FOSS slaves to transform their work into closed source is just the ongoing war against FLOSS.

        who need to proof a secretive conspiracy against FLOSS if it is proofen fact since 1998? it is 22 years ago.
        OK, now that you've given a citation, I can address it.

        Yes, we all agree that Microsoft has a history of dirty tricks. "Embrace, Extent, Extinguish", their "Get the Facts" campaign, etc.

        However, one company (even one that bumped up against antitrust laws) abusing their market power does not qualify as a conspiracy as people generally understand it, because the company is a single entity from the outside and, on the inside, it's expected that publicly-traded corporations will use secret strategies and every dirty-but-legal trick they can find to maximize their profits. It only qualifies to possibly be "a conspiracy" when multiple companies are colluding in secret toward a common goal. Even then, using the word "conspiracy" rather than something without all that baggage, like "collusion", makes it harder for you to be taken seriously.

        Second, your choice of words are very important because there's something called the Overton window. For example, "CLA-WAR" and "FOSS slaves" just say "I'm a crackpot. Ignore me." but something less extreme like "long-term plan to take over big-name open-source projects" will make people more willing to say "Really? Is Microsoft up to their old 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish' tricks again? Send me some URLs so I can form my own opinions."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ssokolow View Post

          OK, now that you've given a citation, I can address it.

          Yes, we all agree that Microsoft has a history of dirty tricks. "Embrace, Extent, Extinguish", their "Get the Facts" campaign, etc.

          However, one company (even one that bumped up against antitrust laws) abusing their market power does not qualify as a conspiracy as people generally understand it, because the company is a single entity from the outside and, on the inside, it's expected that publicly-traded corporations will use secret strategies and every dirty-but-legal trick they can find to maximize their profits. It only qualifies to possibly be "a conspiracy" when multiple companies are colluding in secret toward a common goal. Even then, using the word "conspiracy" rather than something without all that baggage, like "collusion", makes it harder for you to be taken seriously.

          Second, your choice of words are very important because there's something called the Overton window. For example, "CLA-WAR" and "FOSS slaves" just say "I'm a crackpot. Ignore me." but something less extreme like "long-term plan to take over big-name open-source projects" will make people more willing to say "Really? Is Microsoft up to their old 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish' tricks again? Send me some URLs so I can form my own opinions."
          the point about Qt is this: Nokia bought Qt company and Microsoft bought Nokia....

          this means Qt is not as independent as they where back in time. after Microsoft bought Nokia it is a fact that all the CLA code was in the hand of Microsoft and they legally could make BSD style code out of it or even closed source.

          I do not think Microsoft bought nokia because of "Love" -... they bought the nokia patents for patent war and the QT CLA stuff to make it closed source and even more.

          in my point of view all this links Qt directly to the Halloween_documents

          what we see here is just the advance version of the Halloween Document strategies.

          i do not think Qt is independent they act like but they are not.

          and they run out of money because the same people who Own all this they selled the FED according to X22 report
          it was in this https://youtu.be/eeA5yvdan7A or this one https://youtu.be/JxfQf0qojQE

          point is they can no longer print free money for their operation. and because of this they cut the money to Qt.

          in my point of view because of this a fork would be the wrong way to handle this situation the best way
          would be that someone who is from the other side of CLA-WAR like IBM just buy the Qt company.

          after this they could refocus the Qt stuff away from the CLA-->Closed Source business model to a true FLOSS friendly model.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
            [*]That "the cabale who funded the controlled opposition to a true FLOSS" exists.
            just in case if you want learn something about the cabale: https://benjaminfulford.net/2020/04/...-slave-revolt/

            Comment


            • Oh look, random Internet truther blogs. I think ssokolow meant a bit more credible sources than David Icke wannabes.
              What's next, lizard men conspiracy, 5G COVID-19 association and vaccines with nanochips?
              Quaridarium, I recommend astrology if you absolutely need to believe in something that doesn't exist. Probably less harmful to your brain as you won't be seeing only enemies around you and you can bend your theories just as well, and "truth" is much easier to untangle.
              Last edited by reavertm; 15 April 2020, 09:47 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by reavertm View Post
                Oh look, random Internet truther blogs. I think ssokolow meant a bit more credible sources than David Icke wannabes.
                What's next, lizard men conspiracy, 5G COVID-19 association and vaccines with nanochips?
                Quaridarium, I recommend astrology if you absolutely need to believe in something that doesn't exist. Probably less harmful to your brain as you won't be seeing only enemies around you and you can bend your theories just as well, and "truth" is much easier to untangle.
                I'd prefer more credible sources but sources of any sort are important because, regardless of credibility, you need to know what the other party is hanging their perspective off of in order to put together a constructive reply.

                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                just in case if you want learn something about the cabale: https://benjaminfulford.net/2020/04/...-slave-revolt/
                First, I was hoping you might realize on your own, but there's no "e" in "cabal". Second, a more rationale "us vs. them" perspective would be something like The First Global Civil War by Lionel Dricot, which is basically a 2013 perspective of how the people who profit from the status quo are starting to fight back against the cultural trends first announced in John Perry Barlow's 1996 essay, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace.

                Another sane take on that perspective would be Cory Doctorow's 2011 talk at 28c3 titled The coming war on general computation which foreshadows trends like the Intel ME, AMD PSP, Microsoft trying to frog-boil their way to ARM-based Windows devices with locked-down bootloaders (eg. dipping their toes into virtualizing all Win32 stuff on top of something locked down), and Cinavia.

                If you want sane, rational sources, I'd suggest you start with the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Deeplinks blog, TorrentFreak, Chaos Communication Congress talks, and Rick Falkvinge's site, Falkvinge on Liberty.
                Last edited by ssokolow; 15 April 2020, 10:08 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by reavertm View Post
                  Oh look, random Internet truther blogs. I think ssokolow meant a bit more credible sources than David Icke wannabes.
                  What's next, lizard men conspiracy, 5G COVID-19 association and vaccines with nanochips?
                  Quaridarium, I recommend astrology if you absolutely need to believe in something that doesn't exist. Probably less harmful to your brain as you won't be seeing only enemies around you.
                  COVID-19 is not a name of a virus SARS-CoV-2 is. and this is old virus even newspapers in 2007 shows articles about this virus.
                  and yes the covid-19 was not a virus it as G5 microwave as a weapon and satellite microwave weapons who hited china because they rejected FED Fiat money.

                  the point what makes this related to the Qt company topic is this: the FED and the US corporation of District of Columbia, aka Washington, D.C. the Act of 1871. THE UNITED STATES corporation has gone bankrupt in 16 febuary 2020

                  because of this the cabale has no longer the ability to fund their operations and the controlled opposition. "Qt" was one of these.

                  Comment


                  • Pinging Michael to un-stick an over-cited post.

                    Also, I accidentally wiped my original post with a mis-selected Ctrl+V and didn't notice until after it had fallen off Firefox's Ctrl+Z stack, so apologies if this is a bit rushed and lazy.

                    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                    COVID-19 is not a name of a virus SARS-CoV-2 is. and this is old virus even newspapers in 2007 shows articles about this virus.
                    COVID-19 is the name of the disease caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2, just like AIDS is the name of the disease caused by the HIV virus. People say "the AIDS virus" as a shorthand for "the virus that causes AIDS" all the time and this is no different.

                    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                    and yes the covid-19 was not a virus it as G5 microwave as a weapon and satellite microwave weapons who hited china because they rejected FED Fiat money.
                    First, the conspiracy theory you're referring to is about 5G (5th Generation mobile phone networks).

                    Second, those aren't even deployed yet in some of the countries hit by COVID-19 and there's no correlation between the spead of COVID-19 and the deployment patterns of 5G.

                    Third, please learn about the inverse square law. The only reason cellphones are noteworthy in any way is because you're holding a powerful long-distance radio transmitter right next to your head. You have more to worry about from briefs or laptops lowering your sperm count.

                    In fact, 5G is actually safer than previous standards because each new generation of mobile phone technology implements new ways to run the radio at lower power levels to improve battery life.

                    As for the radio frequencies themselves, if a lightbulb in your house can't give you a sunburn, 5G can't hurt you either. The reason gamma rays, X-rays, and ultraviolet light can all hurt you is that they're all high-enough energy to damage molecules in your body. Radio waves are lower energy than visible light and it's probably better to think of them as "light that passes through walls in the same way that visible light passes through glass". (Did you know that glass is opaque to infrared light? That's why greenhouses work. They let in the visible light the plants eat, but don't let the heat radiate out.)

                    The reason microwave ovens can cook food is that they operate at the specific resonant frequency of water and fat molecules... like a singer breaking a wine glass or a kid going higher and higher on a swing with each push. 5G doesn't use that frequency and, even if it did, Mythbusters showed that it's a lot harder to build a microwave that it looks because you have to shape your box to minimize destructive interference where microwaves get cancelled out by their reflections/echoes.

                    WiFi operates in different parts of the same block of frequencies. If the WiFi at your local McDonalds or wherever didn't hurt you, 5G won't either.

                    This Mother Jones article, Lead: America’s Real Criminal Element quotes a very interesting observation that's relevant here:

                    Experts often suggest that crime resembles an epidemic. But what kind? Karl Smith, a professor of public economics and government at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, has a good rule of thumb for categorizing epidemics: If it spreads along lines of communication, he says, the cause is information. Think Bieber Fever. If it travels along major transportation routes, the cause is microbial. Think influenza. If it spreads out like a fan, the cause is an insect. Think malaria. But if it’s everywhere, all at once—as both the rise of crime in the ’60s and ’70s and the fall of crime in the ’90s seemed to be—the cause is a molecule.
                    I'd also suggest this 12-minute video I think you'd find interesting: SciShow: Why Do Bats Carry So Many Dangerous Diseases?

                    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                    the point what makes this related to the Qt company topic is this: the FED and the US corporation of District of Columbia, aka Washington, D.C. the Act of 1871.
                    Have you actually read the act? It's about combining the existing two municipalities there into a single city so a single municipal government can coordinate city planning and city services more effectively. Here in Ontario, Canada, that has happened many times with nothing sinister about it. You see it in rural townships like Adjala-Tosorontio, Douro-Dummer, Oro-Medonte, and so on as well as big cities like Toronto, New York, London, etc.

                    If you want more info on that, here's an interesting video about how London's current structure came to be.

                    As for Washington D.C. itself, if you're bothered by it not being part of any state, that's actually the norm for national capitals and it's intended to keep the national capital from playing favourites with the one state/province it's in or vice-versa. I'm Canadian and we're the weirdoes in having Ottawa an ordinary city in Ontario. (For example, Australia has Canberra, A.C.T. with the A.C.T. standing for Australian Capital Territory.)

                    If you want to worry about something, the actual problem is U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Buckley v. Valeo and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti which effectively legalized a way to bribe politicians in the U.S.

                    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                    THE UNITED STATES corporation has gone bankrupt in 16 febuary 2020
                    I agree that there are a lot of shady problems with the U.S. dollar, and that the U.S. Federal Reserve has some unique flaws compared to other countries' central reserve banks, but let's just focus on one thing for now:

                    By definition, a government cannot go bankrupt because they define what the currency is, so they can always make enough to pay off their creditors. (They owe a certain number of dollars, not a certain amount of real-world value represented by those dollars.)

                    It's a terrible idea to trigger hyper-inflation by printing money willy-nilly, but that's not the same as going bankrupt.

                    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                    because of this the cabale has no longer the ability to fund their operations and the controlled opposition. "Qt" was one of these.
                    You really believe that something as trivial as Qt would matter if that were actually true? Qt is peanuts.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
                      He is clearly referring to the current governance model as “Open Governance model of Qt”. He wants to keep this to best possible level. Naturally that includes continued CLA.
                      This is you cherry picking and getting it wrong the party that created the Open Governance of Qt is Nokia. So he is not referring to the current governance model here instead a historic one. Lets go back to Nokia time frame there is no CLA.

                      Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
                      Your comments about dual license vs CLA makes no sense either. Dual licensing requires a CLA in place. Naturally Nokia required CLA and transferred all that to Digia.
                      This is where you are in complete wrong. Nokia on Qt never had a CLA. Did not exist. Digia was the part that first put a CLA in place.

                      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal...utor_Agreement

                      This fedora thing is in fact based off of what Nokia use to have. It called a Contributor Agreement this is not a CLA. What a basic Contributor Agreement says you will only submit stuff that confirms the the current licensing rules. So in Nokia time this was Dual license that was on the code base so really simple Contributor Agreement.

                      Basically Dual Licensing does not require a CLA never has. You need a Contributor Agreement on those submitting to say they will accept both licenses but that is it. Yes you can use a CLA instead of a Contributor Agreement to cover this case but its not required.

                      Why did Digia require CLA it is because they started doing parts that were not core Qt in the commercial version.

                      Yes you have make a mistake that Nokia required a CLA. CLA not a required by Nokia because they had basic Contributor Agreement and dual licensing instead and no unique to commercial version bits so a CLA is excess complexity back then. The transfer to Digia was the transfer of the Qt commercial license granted rights over the code base. So no CLA required at all in the Nokia time frame in charge of Qt. When you are referring Open Governance of Qt you are talking in the Nokia time frame so CLA does not exist in the Qt world yet.

                      Basically you are cherry picking out of context and putting your own context on it about time you stop. You have to remember Till was working with Qt in the Nokia time frame.

                      Digia and latter for Qt Governance don't use to term Open Governance so he is referring to very exact time frame that is Nokia. Like it or not the Nokia time frame over Qt has nothing to-do with CLA. Yes the idea of copyright assignments by CLA.


                      By the way the Basic Contributor Agreement idea came from Trolltech ASA and they are the first documented party to use it. When Nokia acquired Trolltech it was simpler for Nokia to leave what Trolltech was doing in place.. CLA first appearance Qt world is with KDE 2008 and you are waiting to 2012 after Nokia is no longer in charge of Qt for Qt to have a CLA. Basically KDE is what gave Digia the idea that CLA was a option.

                      Open Governace model of QT you really need to read on.

                      https://www.zdnet.com/article/nokia-...ce-governance/

                      Nokia solid off to Digia the commercial license stuff of qt. Never sold off the open source qt stuff instead put open source Qt under Open Source Governance. "The Qt Company" legal is putting restrictions on something that don't legally own.

                      144Hz see your big problem qt open source governance is something Nokia did that Digia and "The Qt Company" prefer to pretend did not happen because it effectively splits the qt code base in 2 legally. Nokia 2011 move has nothing to-do with CLA but to protect the future of the Qt framework from commercial aggression. CLA is paper work Digia created and now "The Qt Company" use terms as sledge hammer.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X