I'd like to see the QT libraries make it a goal to refactor and reduce their code base to about 20% (or whatever) of what it currently is. Come up with smarter more orthogonal ways of doing things rather than pile more and more stuff together.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Digia Officially Releases Qt 5.0
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by varikonniemi View PostQt5, Wayland, QML2, QtQuick on the Jolla mobile phone. That will be a game changer #2. #1 will be the jolla phone as it is released with X11 / Qt4.
Comment
-
These tinfoil hat discussions have been going on since Qt first started.
That's 20 years of people preaching doom and gloom with Qt yet its still here and still the most practical open source framework for cross platform development.
Literally, every single time there has been even a small change to Qt people freak out. Its honestly become comical to watch.
Comment
-
Originally posted by funkSTAR View PostJolla = closed source with a shit load of patents, Qt = CLA to steal external contributor copyright. If you fancy shit like this, go buy a mac and an iphone.
Comment
-
Originally posted by markg85 View PostSo please, stop your idiotic comments and just be on the subject: Qt 5.
"Protection for end user being freely available to modify Qt within your application or device - and from delivering end user the needed tools do so"
If this is not OpenCore, I don't know what is.
Commercial assistance would be ok.
Customized qt would be ok.
Support priority would be ok.
This above is NOT OK. The above is like - give us money and you can rape RMS. This is clearly double standard, with money NOT used for support, but for hindering, closing and misusing opensource team.
Also, I have found in my previous posts, that they ARE replacing code LGPL code with other code - very probably BSD. Qt is dead for me. At least most applications I use are opensource, which means they are portable to other framework.
Regarding patents - one can issue "Defensive publication" to make the technology public and invalid for patenting, but yes, many patents are already held and one needs access to patent pool.Last edited by crazycheese; 19 December 2012, 06:56 PM.
Comment
-
It requires assignment of key rights otherwise associated with copyright. Namely, the right to relicense. When you've got that, then you don't care who the copyright belongs to. The copyright is then reduced to just a cosmetic detail; giving credit to whomever wrote the code.
When you agree to the CLA, you effectively give up the rights that copyright gives you. Which might be just fine with you. It's subjective and people decide for themselves whether this is OK or not.
Comment
-
Originally posted by crazycheese View PostAlso, I have found in my previous posts, that they ARE replacing code LGPL code with other code - very probably BSD. Qt is dead for me. At least most applications I use are opensource, which means they are portable to other framework.
It's still open source and you've got it under the LGPL license. No one can take that away from you. You've got all rights granted by the LGPL and no one can stop you from exercising those rights.
Comment
-
Originally posted by crazycheese View Postrop your bullshit sir, Wikipedia page says its proprietary.
Originally posted by RealNCIt requires assignment of key rights otherwise associated with copyright. Namely, the right to relicense. When you've got that, then you don't care who the copyright belongs to. The copyright is then reduced to just a cosmetic detail; giving credit to whomever wrote the code.
The Qt Project doesn?t require a copyright or other IP assignment for contributions submitted and each person retains ownership of the code as well as related IP they create. Ownership of code or related IP is not transferred. The Qt Project does require a contribution agreement (i.e. license) in benefit of Qt, so that Digia can continue to meet the spirit of its existing commitments, such as those owed to the KDE Free Qt Foundation and commercial users of Qt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teho View PostWhat do you mean?
Because you own the copyright to your own code you can relicence it as you see fit. Only Digia has the right to relicence the code of other people than themselves though.
So still having the copyright to your code doesn't mean much since you can't control what they do with it. They can do anything they wish with it. The effect is the same as assigning them the copyright.
Note how this is in tandem with the BSD license. But Digia doesn't offer Qt under the BSD. They offer it under the LGPL. Of course that's because Digia doesn't want to give contributors the same rights contributors give to Digia. That would be bad for business. It's pretty much an abuse of the LGPL. But only from a contributor's point of view. From the user's perspective, you're dealing with LGPL code. You can modify it and redistribute it as you see fit. The only thing you can't do is having your code accepted upstream. So if you have large modifications, you would need to fork Qt and maintain those modifications there yourself and keep everything LGPL.Last edited by RealNC; 19 December 2012, 07:23 PM.
Comment
Comment