There was symbian for a time but it wasn't the majority by any strech. Maemo was GTK.
Qt hasn't dropped support for Linux at all. Qt's strong points have always been about embedded and desktop. Mobile was never really that big with Qt beyond some apps with symbian..
Qt still has many people invested in it. There are so many companies with stakes in Qt here is a list: Integrated Computer Solutions, Intel, RIM, Google, Panasonic, Philips, Samsung, Volvo, Seimens, Autodesk, Dreamworks, Lucasfilm, Walt Disney, Wolfram, European space agency, HP, The Foundry, Cadsoft. Lots of free software uses Qt aswell, Virtualbox, VLC, KDE.
Of that list, how many of those use Qt on symbian? I don't think there is even one. Its all Desktop and embedded.
Putting Qt in more market only adds more contributors and is a good thing.
KDE is another story. All their releases are buggy.
for the 3384893828423894203490234902347812371236874678346 time Qt is already LGPL and most of this code is already in git as LGPL, the team manager is not making this code addons cuz digia will evily hide the code but cuz the current maintainers future is unknown hence is better to hold back until is sure a proper maintainer will review the code[or the same but working in another company], is just a precaution.
beside the risk of digia[or other company] will risk their bussiness keeping a parallel version of Qt is very narrow like i said no one will pay support for a broken piece of software that has 2 different sets of API and if digia is stupid enough to do it i bet most of their clients will choose to stay with the open one[cuz will be lots more active and reviewed after all they came to Qt for something!! if not they had stayed with microsoft tech].
those blogs are useless to the discussion since those charts is an external developed by digia product unrelated to the Qt framework[they are not forbidden to create products from Qt nor anyone else LOL] and btw QNX port exist in Qt since 2009 same as vxworks [btw qnx and vxworks are closed source to the bone hence making no sense to keep rooting/polluting the LGPL version][who the hell is still using QNX?? i have years without hearing anything about it except for RIM <--- real question btw], so as far as they dont compromise the base Qt framework they can use it to create flying cars for what i care.
digia is just trying to improve their bussiness income eating their own food developing external goodies using Qt[what is so evil about it?? you prefer them to use .NET??] now an alarming thing would be that for example QSceneGraph use only software rendering in LGPL and opengl/dx in the pay version[cuz you are affecting the framework here] but even on that case community just add opengl and rename the project and .I. digia cuz the code is already LGPL
There is actually nothing left under KDE hood that has to be polished.
I, also, don't understand this whole critizism behind current dual-licensed Qt.
You are offered feature-parity and if anyone decides to base his closed-source code on Qt, he has to pay for closed source Qt version - and as such he pushes Qt development.
If he wants to use it within his opensourced code (regardless if he makes money with this or not), he has opensource version.
Both versions have feature parity.
The only single thing in this model left is - upstream unwilling to accept patches, as it was with Oracle.
Then, the whole model turns from opensource into opencore, and THATs unacceptable, as it does reduce the functionality of open software to shareware equivalent.
This is why openoffice was forked.
So many people complain that Qt is not as open as GTK as it had a closed license, then with the QPL, and even now as it carries the LGPL. Now without argument, Qt will be as open as GTK, with a much larger community and clearly more cross-platform-compatible code. There's no way that Nokia selling Qt will hurt it. I don't even understand how they can sell it at this point. Does Nokia even own more than the "Qt" trademark at this point? How could Nokia even affect "qt-project.org" in anyway? Can they affect Digia's right to sell a commerical license of Qt?
Well, with the dual license, I guess that one thing people wouldn't like to see is it turning into what OpenAL is now - a once open-source project turned proprietary, with the proprietary part having all the really good features (EFX equivalent to EAX Advanced HD 5.0, for instance). OpenAL Soft couldn't match what Creative did, so what makes you certain that it will be different with Qt, in case the company that owns it turns the project proprietary?
Hold on a second, I just realized the proprietary addon digia is providing isn't much of an addon as it is just a few pre-made widgets. Hell Digia isn't the only company doing this, anyone can do it! Look: http://www.kdab.com/kdab-products/kd-tools/
Not to mention the widgets Digia sells are similar to Qwt which is LGPL only.
So digia hasn't done any foul here at all.
They still pay a lot of Qt developers and Nokia still owns the copyrights, as well as their stake in qt-project.Quote:
There's no way that Nokia selling Qt will hurt it. I don't even understand how they can sell it at this point. Does Nokia even own more than the "Qt" trademark at this point? How could Nokia even affect "qt-project.org" in anyway? Can they affect Digia's right to sell a commerical license of Qt?
They want all Uis to be done in QML and maybe even entire applications.Quote:
While the QWidget based classes are extremely important for existing applications, we are, over time, going to move to a model where all UIs are being done in QML. Separating the QWidget based functionality into its own library is therefore a good measure to achieve a clean architecture in Qt 5 in the long term