Printable View
Port to Windows Runtime kick-started.Quote:
Originally Posted by erendorn
First supported mobile OS for Qt5 was the N9 btw, it was fully working a year before Qt5 was even released.
For those interested in how to fast JavaScript is even possible on iOS or WP, try to read this: QML Engine Internals Part 3: Binding Types. V4 is some awesome shit.
aw, that would be nice!Quote:
Originally Posted by carewolf
LOL. Are you blind or what? Digias understanding of "free" is to force all contributors to assign the a very broad license so they can screw the GPL.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanny
there you have it. Digia(Oracle2) busine$$ is selling as many commercial licensed Qt products as possible. They do this by targeting closed platforms with commercial software.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle2
Not Quite funkstar, what that says is the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by funkSTAR
Our toolkit is under LGPL, but if you want a BSD equivalent license and paid support... you can have it, for a price (e.g. you get all of the freedom of the LGPL but if you want more than that you have to pay for it, which is fair). It says nothing about having to pay to use other platforms the way you have to do with say Mono.
Oh and funkstar you're kinda neckbearding it out yourself if you think that having a completely portable (write once, compile and run anywhere (including all the mobile OSes: BBX, iOS, Android, WindowsRT, etc...)), open source toolkit is a bad thing. I mean unless you like people writing to device specific closed source toolkits...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf
Thank you for putting it straight; Qt is NOT under the license restriction making it free software. Go tell that loud and clear to all the Qt neckbeardos.
I couldnt care less for a commercial toolkit targeting all the closed OSes. I dont give a fuck. However when Qt clearly is dong evil with the contributor license and slings FUD from the sales offices it gets to ne my business. I suggest you try call em and ask if the commercial license offers you protection against open source and you will have the bad mouthing open source in minutes. Been there done that.Quote:
Oh and funkstar you're kinda neckbearding it out yourself if you think that having a completely portable (write once, compile and run anywhere (including all the mobile OSes: BBX, iOS, Android, WindowsRT, etc...)), open source toolkit is a bad thing. I mean unless you like people writing to device specific closed source toolkits...
Im gonna repeat this; DIGIAS BUSINESS IS NOT TO BE YOUR FAVORITE HIPPIEWARE TOOLKIT FOR HIPPIE-LINIX. DIGIAS BUSINESS IS TO SELL AS MANY COMMERCIAL LICENSES AND GET AS MANY RUNTIMES OUTTHERE. IS HOW THEY MAKE MONEY. AND IF PEOPLE WONT USE LINUX, QT MUST CONE TO PEOPLE(IPS, WINDOW, QNX ET AL.)
That muffin shop on the corner of your street is selling muffins that were made with a freely available recipe (under an LGPL like license) with their propriatary icing on top! Quick, grab the pitch-forks and torches!
Wait, no, wrong metaphor. Oh well, still funny. :p
I guess a more appropriate metaphor (or, analogy, in this case) would go something like this:
A baker has a stack of muffin recipe printouts on the counter, and is giving them away for free. You can use them to make your own muffins, and use those muffins to support your propriatary additions (icing, sprinkles, etc.), but you must contribute any modifications to the actual recipe (more milk, no egg-white, etc.) back. The baker additionally offers commercial support/license, for those who wish to use the recipe in their business. It is not required, but he/she claims that it would be beneficial.
(Edit: If it is required, they should change should to must. Otherwise, it implies an alternative, although "less" appealing, option.)
All three public domain, permissive and copyleft licenses are free software licenses.Quote:
Originally Posted by funkSTAR
You don't get it, do you? You said yourself that 'Qt is NOT under ... restriction ...' therefore it' actually more free!Quote:
Originally Posted by funkSTAR
f.e. BSD is more free than GPL. Ability to fork the code and release it under almost whatsoever license is part of FREEDOM. Freedom that GPL do not have.
And you do not have to use BSD when you want to contribute to Qt. It's up to you. It's your freedom to give them more freedom.
And of course that Digia like BSD. It gives them freedom to sell it under many other licenses.
They can stop developing Qt under LGPL, again, it's their freedom. But the last LGPL version will stay intact! They can't close it as you say or whatever. Nobody can.
KDE also has a license agreement with Digia that if they ever stopped updating or let the LGPL version fall behind the proprietary one, they would have to release the most recent version to KDE under a BSD license that lets them redistribute it. So even if Digia stopped their LGPL releases, KDE would keep releasing the closed version because they'd still get it under BSD, which is even more permissive than LGPL, so it is in Digia's best interests to keep the lgpl release strong.
At the end of the day, qt is the best gui toolkit I've ever used amongst mono, windows forms, gtk, swing, and wx. As long as I have the option, I use qt for interfaces, and with the iOS support coming, I can't see myself writing a new mobile or desktop app in any other framework anymore, just because porting between devices becomes as easy as a new QML layout, build path, and drop in slots.