Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Two Areas KDE Can Use Help Right Now In Porting For Plasma 6.0

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
    GTK and Qt are not equal. GTK is a proper Free upstream, no bad CLA. Qt is Commercial+CLA that happens to come with a dumbed down Free version. Qt’ inferior licensing might be good enough for you but it is not acceptable to large parts of the community and definitely NOT Red Hat.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(software)#Licensing

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
      GTK and Qt are not equal.
      Indeed they are not. Qt is superior to GTK, modern, cross-platform programming toolkit that goes far beyond GUI.
      GTK is also cross-platform but GUI-only toolkit that is additionally stuck in the past (written in C) for obscure reasons (ease to generate bindings to non-object-oriented languages) that defeat primary purpose of framework being convenient to use. Good job.
      Gtkmm is a language binding itself, wrapper (and has some performance penalty to it), doesn't count as GTK.
      Last edited by reavertm; 06-26-2020, 11:25 AM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
        JackLilhammers Clearly not vocal enough.
        And why you'd think that?
        I don't agree with many decisions of the QtCo, but they hardly affect open source users.
        IIRC Qt is still (L)GPLv3 if you develop free software. In your world has become closed source?

        Comment


        • #64
          bug77 Thank you. This is a very good example of how the Qt bias works. Even Wikipedia is infected. The Qt Upstream is not Free. The CLA requires you to hand over a non-Free version. What you see on wikipedia is the available downstream versions.

          Comment


          • #65
            JackLilhammers Nice bias bro. Of course Qt hurts the free users. Want to complain? Then register at Qt... (They closed the comment section the bad news blog posts)

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by JackLilhammers View Post

              That's plain wrong.
              The Kde community has been very vocal against some of the decisions of the QtCo.
              And ... Does it matter? Still it's not a free toolkit at its core. It's a community edition variant of proprietary software... Similar to JetBrains IDEA community edition. At least, JetBrains IDE-s are worth the money.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
                bug77 Thank you. This is a very good example of how the Qt bias works. Even Wikipedia is infected. The Qt Upstream is not Free. The CLA requires you to hand over a non-Free version. What you see on wikipedia is the available downstream versions.
                No, this is me calling BS on you claiming we somehow get a dumbed down version supposedly because of CLA.
                Also, wth is "Qt upstream" and "Qt downstream"?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
                  Nice bias bro.
                  LMAO at you accusing people of bias.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    bug77 Upstream: mainline source tree. Downstreams: any trees that branch from mainline. So Qt keeps the mainline tree fully relicensable via own copyrights and forcing contributors to sign the CLA. Free Qt is a downstream tree restricted to parts of the mainline source trees and obviously restricted to Free licenses like GPL or LGPL.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
                      bug77 Upstream: mainline source tree. Downstreams: any trees that branch from mainline. So Qt keeps the mainline tree fully relicensable via own copyrights and forcing contributors to sign the CLA. Free Qt is a downstream tree restricted to parts of the mainline source trees and obviously restricted to Free licenses like GPL or LGPL.
                      Yeah, no. That's not how GPL works, you can't keep GPL code inside your restricted repository or otherwise include it in restricted code. The git repository doesn't show any upstreams either. So I'm going to assume this is something you came out on your own. I'll keep digging, maybe there's something I'm missing here, but so far it looks to me like you're just making stuff up.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X