Digia Officially Releases Qt 5.0

[GreatEmerald]

Great, you edited wikipedia with no links.
But how do deal with google search, especially article on LWN and videos that explicitly claim UI layer is proprietary as in "closed source".

Yes, because there were no links in the article. Wikipedia's policy allows contesting unsourced material. And if you want a claim to the contrary, see this:

https://twitter.com/sycoso_tela/status/271727503100489731

This is a reliable source, because that is the developers themselves writing about it. The LWN post (it's not an article) is by a third party and shows that it is mere speculation. Therefore it is an unreliable source.

[crazycheese]

No, no it doesn't. Check your sources.

Great, you edited wikipedia with no links.
But how do deal with google search, especially article on LWN and videos that explicitly claim UI layer is proprietary as in "closed source".

I don't see how that matters. The code you get works. I don't care how the commercial Qt looks like. The one I got under the LGPL works just fine. KDE uses it and a lot of non-KDE apps too.
Note that the Qt Project develops the code, not Digia. Digia cannot reject code. What Digia gets from the Qt Project is the relicensing thing.

Nothing, just contributors used as free coders for proprietary without reverse flow (was there any?) and LGPL exploit.
Wonder why are they exploiting GPL.. possibly to misguide contributors.

I was actually sure Qt is dual licensed GPL/proprietary on fair conditions, but upon reading them today - they are no where "fair".
And we have mono ape on GTK side. This is just splendid. Maybe they should just drop everything and relicense it BSD. At least they won't be misguiding people.

[RealNC]

I don't see how that matters. The code you get works. I don't care how the commercial Qt looks like. The one I got under the LGPL works just fine. KDE uses it and a lot of non-KDE apps too.

Note that the Qt Project develops the code, not Digia. Digia cannot reject code. What Digia gets from the Qt Project is the relicensing thing.

[crazycheese]

You seem to be confusing "using Qt" with "contributing to Qt."

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.

Please read the link to licensing above. I am not confusing anything.

The feature table is like holy pope against 10 sins, and holy pope who allows anyone to rape his daughter for money.
This is not acceptable. This is like... Humble THQ Bundle. But doing that permanently.

"Using Qt", I will not wonder if LGPL version of Qt is crippled compared to "commercial" Qt.

I mean, this at least should be fair so that changes from "commercial" version are integrated back into opensource version if "commercial" in Digia opinion is all about closing down, and not about "priority support" as it should be.
This would at least introduce parity between open/closed. :/

With this policy I seriously wonder if Digia accepts any patches that level the difference between.

Owning the copyright means owning the rights to your work, meaning owning an *exclusive* right to relicense your code. Normally, only he copyright owner has that right. The CLA allows Digia to relicense your code which is normally only possible by the copyright owner.

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.

This seems to give them complete control over user contributions.
They can close down Qt any day. They can cut features out. This makes contributions conditions equal to public domain assigned to digia.

[GreatEmerald]

Drop your bullshit sir, Wikipedia page says its proprietary.

No, no it doesn't. Check your sources.

[RealNC]

What 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.

Owning the copyright means owning the rights to your work, meaning owning an *exclusive* right to relicense your code. Normally, only he copyright owner has that right. The CLA allows Digia to relicense your code which is normally only possible by the copyright owner.

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.

[Teho]

rop your bullshit sir, Wikipedia page says its proprietary.

Yes because everything that's written in Wikipedia is true... Sailfish is based on Linux/glibc/systemd/X11/PulseAudio/GStreamer/ConnMann/oFono/Qt/Maliit/Nemo/Mer... only thing that might be propietary is the end user applications but even that is not set in stone.

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.

What do you mean?

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.

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.

[RealNC]

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.

You seem to be confusing "using Qt" with "contributing to Qt."

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.

[RealNC]

Qt's CLA also doesn't require copyright assigment.

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.

[crazycheese]

So please, stop your idiotic comments and just be on the subject: Qt 5.

I call this idiotic. Excuse me.

http://qt.digia.com/Product/Licensing/License-Comparison/

"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.

Sailfish is almost completely open source and without patents you can't survive in the mobile market. Qt's CLA also doesn't require copyright assigment.

Drop your bullshit sir, Wikipedia page says its proprietary.

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.