MonoDevelop vs. Xamarin Studio IDEs

[jrch2k8]

thx for remind me of qwt, i totally forgot to put it in my post.

sorry for the ad-moninems but weak/baseless trolling make my blood boil

for funktroll
1.)for the sake of continuity Qt Charts is an external product and digia was developing it before they acquired Qt like many other commertial software around that uses Qt as foundation(Qt charts is easy troll candy for the coincidence that digia that used to make commercial Qt software actually buyed Qt)

2.) there is no such thing as Blackberry Qt(OMG) but an port of Qt to QNX(the actual OS for god sakes get at least your facts straight) that blackberry decided to use/incorporate in their blackberry product(like megoo or tizen) trying to use an very popular and well tested API that many developers are already familiar and comfortable with, so they can attract developers to their store fast(they need a strong app ecosystem to even have a chance against android/ios killer combo). The actual mobile code that is in Qt today and blackberry is actually taking advantage now comes from Nokia(before the current troy horse CEO) and as far as i can see any LGPL/commercial Qt Apps can basicaly be recompiled and run in BB 10/android/ios{ovbiously if you use non Qt code or ASM you need to port it to ARM/QNX equivalents}. Ofc i havent done a full review of BB SDK but i expect only minors higher level classes outside Qt{but Qobject based} to handle phone specific bindings(accelerometrs/rotation/gyroscope/etc)

Update seems that BB introduced an extension(Cascades) for Qt quick that do the same thing but faster[aka Blob optimized render VS Qt GLES renderer that normally is horridly bugged in mobile drivers]

[funkSTAR]

No, they do not differ between customers. They are simply licensing a proprietary piece of software based on Qt, a *very* common thing among software vendors. Actually, proprietary offerings built with Qt has been the main money driver for all the open development. One may of course disagree with the business model. I for one tend to agree with you that copyright transfer agreements are bad practice. Nevertheless, I think you are missing the big picture totally here. AFAIK, there is no way all KDE programmers will sign such agreements, I know I won't.

Thanks for confirming that Digia uses open core Busine$$ to capitalize. Please repeat to the those who wont accept this simple FACT.

Now back to business; You say you tend to agree about the license(not copyight) transfer. Well here is news for you; KDAB is fucking KDE. By the "great works on framework5" they are transfering former KDE-lib stuff into Qt. And you know what a that means. Going into Qt is saying byebye to copyleft because of the Qt contributor license. So right now everybody in KDE is cheering for frameworks5 which really are just shady skunkworks5 to decopyleftize(nice word, cant be googled) KDE. Digia likes this and KDAB likes this. Yuck!

[brosis]

I backup everything that FunkSTAR says and he is not trolling. Only copyright owner can assign a license and copyright transfer agreement, in any form, allow to control the entire contributed block of code and assign any license.

While this is not problematic for Qt as a library (libraries should ideally dynlink to anything) to be in essence *BSD licensed, it is highly problematic for anything non-library and in fact, results in ability to exploit GPL completely removing it.

The only positive thing, is that Dignia either ensures that the code is LGPLed, or it gets payed for allowing closed source license. Both ways exclude a possibility of zerocost closed down project fork without paying Dignia for that. That is not possible with *BSD license.

That, of course, goes in contrast with original motivation behind GPL - to be able to always prove and improve the source code one is running, no matter what financial model is used to create the code.

So, basically what you want to do, if you support freedom software rather than opencore/shareware, is to publish your contribution under "Latest available GPL license" and never sign any copyright transfer agreements.

[pingufunkybeat]

Of course he's trolling.

He's using tons of BSD-licensed software on his computer: OpenSSH, X.org, the whole graphics stack, etc., which is even worse for copyleft than Qt's situation, yet he doesn't bla bla bla bla bla about that all the time, 100% of the time.

He's just getting people riled up with outrageous half-truths, a classic troll.

[funkSTAR]

He's just getting people riled up with outrageous half-truths, a classic troll.

So regarding stuff going from KDE into Qt; I state that former LGPL KDE lib code redone by KDAB and transfered to Qt looses it copyleft when the Qt contributor license is signed.
NON-TRUTH, HALF-TRUTH or PURE-TRUTH?

[pingufunkybeat]

So regarding stuff going from KDE into Qt; I state that former LGPL KDE lib code redone by KDAB and transfered to Qt looses it copyleft when the Qt contributor license is signed.
NON-TRUTH, HALF-TRUTH or PURE-TRUTH?

Half-truth, obviously.

[funkSTAR]

Half-truth, obviously.

And why doesnt it qualify as a PURE-TRUTH? You might not like the messenger still you have obligations to back your claims. Unless of course you are just trolling to avoid the facts; KDEs copyleft is being stripped down.

[pingufunkybeat]

And why doesnt it qualify as a PURE-TRUTH?

Because it will still be available under the LGPL. What changed is that it will ADDITIONALLY be available under a closed license.

This is unfortunate, but still much preferable to the BSD license, IMHO.

[funkSTAR]

Because it will still be available under the LGPL. What changed is that it will ADDITIONALLY be available under a closed license.

Which is the same as loosing copyleft. Bummer

[pingufunkybeat]

Which is the same as loosing copyleft. Bummer

No, it isn't, but you already know this and are only trolling.