Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Some Qt Contributors Uneasy About The Growing Commercial Focus Of The Qt Company

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by ssokolow View Post

    From what I remember, there was an explicit concern about companies like VMWare preferring GTK+ over Qt due to it offering an LGPL license while Qt didn't. Given that Ubuntu and Fedora both favour GTK+-based desktops and there tend to be more and better GTK+ language bindings than Qt bindings due to the ease of wrapping the C ABI via the GObject Introspection system, killing off the LGPL option would only hurt Qt more.

    (Something I really don't want, since I don't like the direction the GTK+ 3.x ecosystem seems to be going as far as well-maintained themes and UI design guidelines go)
    Just to clarify: it seems as though the CSS Storm of Breaking has passed, with the release of 3.20.

    Originally posted by scionicspectre

    Thank you for creating an issue. Unfortunately, due to a lack of resources, we weren't able to create the new theme in time for GTK 3.20's release. Hopefully one of us can find the time, but if anyone reading this bug is motivated to work on the theme, please feel free to contact any of the authors- your help would be much appreciated.

    Since GTK's CSS syntax will remain stable in the future, this should be the last time until GTK 4 that we have such massive breakage.
    The theme is completely broken in GTK 3.20. Lists and menus have no padding, checked checkboxes don’t display their captions, and there are almost no visual components (button/combobox/checkbox bor...

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by liam View Post

      Just to clarify: it seems as though the CSS Storm of Breaking has passed, with the release of 3.20.
      Good to hear! 3.20 also broke application specific stylesheets so updating the themes may not be enough, I don't know how many applications apply their own tweaks, though. I still have to update an application myself, to deal with the changes.

      I'm sure open source Qt will continue to be actively developed and used. If the Qt company starts to really neglect it, it will probably be forked and I think that there is enough interest in it to keep the project going.

      Comment


      • #13
        It's paranoia until others see it too, right?

        Comment


        • #14
          So they made the FOSS version less visible. So what? OTOH they made lots of Enterprise Qt components open source.

          Comment


          • #15
            With Qt, the open source downloads were always less visible in the past. This is not the problem.

            What I find a bit daunting is the fact that they actively mislead people in favor of the commercial license. When you finally managed to find the download section they ask three questions:
            • Commercial deployment
            • In-house deployment, private use, or student use
            • Open source distribution under a LGPL or GPL license
            the Open source answer leads you to another question: "Are you prepared to make your application source code publicly available?" with the answers:
            • Yes
            • No
            • Not sure
            Not only is the statement that you have to make your application code open source completely wrong, the only option that leads you to the open source download is the "Yes" answer. The other two will lead you to the commercial registration and download. Once there, you have to confirm again that you are "able to comply with the obligations of the LGPL (or GPL)".

            If this is not a straight lie already, it is very close to it.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by quaz0r View Post
              Copperspice has significant different goals. They value C++ compatibility higher than backwards compatibility. That's a straight reason for a fork.

              Copperspice is LGPL.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by pracedru View Post
                The LGPL license is what made it possible for us to use Qt at my company.
                People around here are still not comfortable with open source, but Qt has certainly helped.
                This is exactly the same case at our company. In the meantime we are paying the commercial license.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by liam View Post

                  Just to clarify: it seems as though the CSS Storm of Breaking has passed, with the release of 3.20.



                  https://github.com/dirruk1/gnome-breeze/issues/56
                  That's only reassuring if GTK 4 is far into the future. And I don't know whether it is. The developers may very well decide that 3.24 (or even 3.22) will become 4.0. (I think I'm exaggerating a bit, since I have no clue about their roadmap, but you get the idea.)

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Still better than GTK+

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by bug77 View Post

                      That's only reassuring if GTK 4 is far into the future. And I don't know whether it is. The developers may very well decide that 3.24 (or even 3.22) will become 4.0. (I think I'm exaggerating a bit, since I have no clue about their roadmap, but you get the idea.)
                      This is my understanding: 3.X is intended to be a development oriented cycle. Once the integrated scene graph lands (and, I'd imagine, they port the desktop to it), that'll be 4.0. This seems like it's intended to happen in the next year, or so (I'm gauging this by looking at their roadmap).
                      One would hope that 4.X will end up being a much more leisurely paced major release as they'll have, at long, long last, have landed all of the major features they've wanted.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X