Printable View
Qt-project is a separate entity from Digia, there's real & complete separation, pop into the Qt-project mail-list, it can be explained in full there.Quote:
Originally Posted by funkSTAR
Not sure what you mean there...Quote:
Remove the CLA, remove the open core business,
Eh? How are MeR (& it's derivatives: Nemo, Sailfish, Plasma) Maemo/MeeGo-Harmattan, KDE, & countless embedded projects non-Linux platforms?Quote:
remove the primary focus on non-linux platforms
Yeah, but I guess most of the computationally expensive stuff is already implemented in libraries, which are written in C.Quote:
Originally Posted by a user
Note that I am not saying that it is in any way faster, just that the overhead for most applications will be minimal.
Generally I like the concept of doing performance critical stuff in high-performance languages like C or C++, and then interface with them from a scripting-like language.
A lot of GNOME applications are already using Python, so nothing has changed in this regard.
As of language preference, good luck finding any group of programmers that agree on which language is the best. :)
+1 but on the other hand, don't project like Desura use GTK+ because with Qt they would need to pay for it since they make money from the SW? I see this as the main disadvantage... (Also projects done in C like Darktable can't use it IMHO...)Quote:
Originally Posted by mmstick
BTW I really hate that "let's use web technologies on desktop and desktop technologies on web" GNOMEs approach lately, one more reason to switch fully to KDE despite some inferior features...
Because anyone suggesting that GNOME should give up all the work and expertise they already have in GTK and switch to Qt is either trolling, or out of touch with reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pawlerson
As a side note: I really like Qt. For a cross platform project I'd choose that over GTK any day.
That's not a disadvantage at all, Desura is simply being cheap. CLA is necessary for the Free Qt Foundation to release under the BSD license. QT is created to give us an open, free GUI framework for all our open source and personal needs. It is a very ambitious project dating back to 1991, and some really neat stuff is added to the framework over time. People who want to create proprietary Qt applications which they will earn money from can simply fork over some dough which also helps Qt development. It's a win-win situation on all fronts. Due to funding from those who buy the licenses, we not only have full time programmers to submit commits at an incredible rate, but the open source community to support development as well. Meanwhile in the GIMP Toolkit camp, they rely completely on volunteer aid, and work with a very limited set of tools in comparison to Qt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redi44
Nations rise and fall, it's all a part of the evolution of humanity and software development alike. Thinking from this standpoint, it's better to stop now and use that experience to build a profile developing for the superior standard than to continue a doomed existence which will inevitably end in more wasted effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by kigurai
This is one of the main problems with Linux; too many different bandwagons trying to reach the same destination; reinventing the wheel several times over. Even if one is far behind the other, they still try to maintain it due to ego; the users are hurt the most by the fragmented effort.
You only need to pay for Qt if you are modifying the source code and have no intention of pushing your changes upstream (and then trying to redistribute it obviously).Quote:
Originally Posted by Redi44
Really? O_oQuote:
Originally Posted by cbamber85
Somebody should really make some FAQ for Qt and its commercial use...
Like here? I don't think they could have made it more obvious... I did miss one caveat, you can't statically link to the Qt libraries without a commercial license.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redi44
In short: You can use Qt libraries for your software and license your software anyway you like, without paying a penny to Digia, as long as you dynamically link to unadulterated Qt libraries.
What would stop you from statically linking Qt to your program? It's licenced under LGPL 2.1 or later after all. You can also make modifications to it but you just have to release them like the licence requires.Quote:
Originally Posted by cbamber85
Quote:
The GNU Lesser General Public License or LGPL (formerly the GNU Library General Public License) is a free software license published by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). The LGPL allows developers and companies to use and integrate LGPL software into their own (even proprietary) software without being required (by the terms of a strong copyleft) to release the source code of their own software-parts. Merely the LGPL software-parts need to be modifiable by end-users (via source code availability): therefore, in the case of proprietary software, the LGPL-parts are usually used in the form of a shared library (e.g. DLL), so that there is a clear separation between the proprietary parts and open source LGPL parts.