Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qt 5.0.1 Released, Fixes Bugs

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

  • phoronix
    started a topic Qt 5.0.1 Released, Fixes Bugs

    Qt 5.0.1 Released, Fixes Bugs

    Phoronix: Qt 5.0.1 Released, Fixes Bugs

    Six weeks after releasing Qt 5.0, Digia has today declared the release of Qt 5.0.1 as the first point release of this new tool-kit...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI4ODc

  • curaga
    replied
    Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    Nothing that is currently available as part of the Qt Project, nor anything submitted to the Qt project, can ever become closed-source. Further, nothing that touches the core of Qt can ever become closed-source.
    The agreement doesn't touch that. For example, they could create a bugfix for core Qt and only ship it in the commercial version, fully legally. This is one way how it could be open-cored. This is my understanding by reading the jpeg agreement; if I'm wrong, please say which part says they cannot do this.

    No, they cannot do this. They are allowed to add additional licenses, but they are not allowed to remove existing licenses. So if you submit your code under the standard LGPL/GPL dual license, they can add whatever additional licenses they want, but they cannot remove your LGPL/GPL license. No part of Qt that has an open-source license can ever have that license removed
    Of course they cannot remove the license of the patch, as it exists in its patch form. But they can, under the CLA, put the same code under a license of their choice, while also not including it in the official Qt open source edition.

    Please note the difference: the new feature is available in its patch form, under its original license. But it may never be integrated in the official open source edition, while at the same time shipping in the commercial edition.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheBlackCat
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    The Qt agreement with KDE will not prevent Qt from becoming open-core, or being slowly chipped away from the edges.
    Nothing that is currently available as part of the Qt Project, nor anything submitted to the Qt project, can ever become closed-source. Further, nothing that touches the core of Qt can ever become closed-source.

    The worst that can happen is that Digia releases some modules they created and that have always been closed-source as closed source. However, this can never be a large portion of Qt because, again, anything that integrates too tightly with the core of Qt has to have an open-source license.

    Digia has no special rights in this regard, anyone anywhere can create closed-source modules for Qt and sell them at whatever price they want. Digia doesn't have any special privileges in this way. Technically, anyone who wanted to could give their closed-source modules away to whoever buys a closed-source license to Qt, but of course only Digia has a motive to do this.

    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    1. You contribute some new feature. You sign their CLA.
    2. They ship it as a closed source module, and it never appears in the open source edition.

    They are fully within their rights to do that, are they not?
    No, they cannot do this. They are allowed to add additional licenses, but they are not allowed to remove existing licenses. So if you submit your code under the standard LGPL/GPL dual license, they can add whatever additional licenses they want, but they cannot remove your LGPL/GPL license. No part of Qt that has an open-source license can ever have that license removed
    Last edited by TheBlackCat; 02-01-2013, 11:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    funkstar has a point, though it may get a bit hard to see with the attitude.

    The Qt agreement with KDE will not prevent Qt from becoming open-core, or being slowly chipped away from the edges. It's not limited to new closed-source only modules, but they way I believe it is it also allows them to do something like this:

    1. You contribute some new feature. You sign their CLA.
    2. They ship it as a closed source module, and it never appears in the open source edition.

    They are fully within their rights to do that, are they not?

    Leave a comment:


  • mvaar
    replied
    Don't talk about freedom

    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
    Oh they forgot to fix bug no. 1: "Qts CLA fucks freedom and fragments the community". They really need to do that. Maybe they just dont care about developers freedom and securing copyleft. Oh yeah they need to fix bug no. 2: "Closed source Qt modules must be liberated".

    What a bunch pf freedom hating posers. Anyone supporting this shit are nothing more than worn out groupies who didnt learn the lesson from Oracle. Well maybe they like the submissive part where their freedom is being fucked. I hope for their recovery though. Regaining enough self respect and saying NO to crap like CLA is tough though. Stockholm syndrome will also cause people to actually defend this kind of abuse. Sad but true. Im praying for the victims.
    So, your version of freedom is your way or no way ?! Why shouldn't anybody have freedom to release code under any license they please ? And who is >forcing< you to use their code ?

    In my observations, the Stockholm syndrome applies very strongly to gnome/gtk groupies. Usually they are the one who keep whining about Qt forever, with utter disregard to facts and common sense. I do not feel abused running Qt based s/w. And I am even stronger in my opinions than any damn asshole. And I have the reasoning to back them.

    I do believe s/w should be free but I do not begrudge people who make money from it, as long as people are not >forced< to use and pay for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • pingufunkybeat
    replied
    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
    Qt is not secured to be copyleft(free software).
    If a GPL/LGPL version of Qt were ever discontinued, it would be released under an FSF-approved license of the KDE Free Qt Foundation's choosing, and all of them are KDE people.

    So any effort to close Qt would result in a GPL version, PLUS a BSD version. The BSD version would kill closed-source Qt development in its tracks. It's a really good agreement, actually.

    Leave a comment:


  • Calinou
    replied
    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
    What a bunch pf freedom hating posers.
    Don't you support Steam?

    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
    Anyone supporting this shit are nothing more than worn out groupies who didnt learn the lesson from Oracle.
    Who actually had issues with Oracle? I haven't -- the open source software they make is good, actually (eg. VirtualBox).

    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
    Well maybe they like the submissive part where their freedom is being fucked.
    Nope.

    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
    Stockholm syndrome will also cause people to actually defend this kind of abuse. Sad but true.
    Will the AMD syndrome save people from the eviiiil NVIDIA? Sad but true.

    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
    Im
    I'm. FTFY.

    ----

    While we're at toolkits, can I have my GTK3 Windows port please?

    Leave a comment:


  • funkSTAR
    replied
    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    And Qt is secured against being closed by a legal contract. So it will not be closed either.
    Qt is not secured to be copyleft(free software). And new Qt modules can be closed source making the open edition lack features. This is happening right now. Sure you dont care about freedom. Why dont you take your Qt to windows it seems like the right place for you.

    Leave a comment:


  • pingufunkybeat
    replied
    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
    GCC requires CA to FSF who will never close it up
    And Qt is secured against being closed by a legal contract. So it will not be closed either.

    Leave a comment:


  • funkSTAR
    replied
    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    BTW, which compiler do you use?

    GCC requires copyright assignment. LLVM can be closed by anyone, which is worse than GPL+CLA.

    I wait, let me guess. You use the Fedora default and will kill everyone who runs anything that is not Fedora default? Same as always then.
    GCC requires CA to FSF who will never close it up or do commercial shit to compromise freedom. Unlike Oracle2. Arch BTW.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X