Trolltech Is No More, Hello Qt Software

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Trolltech Is No More, Hello Qt Software

Trolltech, the Norwegian company behind the Qt GUI framework, is no more. Earlier this year it was announced that Nokia is acquiring Trolltech and they have now decided they don't like the names Trolltech or Qtopia...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=Njc1NQ

[LordBernhard]

R.I.P. Trolltech... I REALLY liked that name :-(

I really hope that Nokia won't restructure everything Trolltech is doing ... part of their image is imo that they are really cool guys and have some freeness and spare time in their jobs for projects they want to do... and their name was another sign for their philosophie...

Well.. time will tell..

[oyvind]

Seems like corporate crap has already begun showing its ill effects. "Qt Software" is boring. "Trolltech" was cool. "Qt Extended" is just stupid. "QTopia" way better. Why on earth would they kill off these brand names ? Sad middle-aged upper-management men in suits are calling the shots now. I just hope the guys doing the *real work* will be appreciated for their passion and skill, and that they will be able to continue working on making Qt one of the best open-source cross-platform frameworks for software development. But who knows what will happen when Nokia decides it doesn't profit enough off of the non-embedded world.

[Vadi]

I am starting to worry about my project coder making us switch to Qt from GTK+...

[reavertm]

Yeah, 'corporate crap' has started and all - heading to GPLv3 for Qt is certainly some corporate crap...
Oh please, stop this FUD already - it's just name change.
And everyone who think "Qt Software" is boring name certainly doesn't see the clever word play - you know - at Trolltech, Qt is spelled in a bit 'cute' way

[hubick]

Wake me up when QT is _L_GPL.

[mlau]

Wake me up when QT is _L_GPL.

I'm curious: Why LGPL?

[hubick]

I'm curious: Why LGPL?

I draw two lines:
1) Between the platform and the applications.
2) Between the general purpose and the specialized.

The platform (1) consists of the software libraries and API's needed to construct and execute the majority of applications. General applications (2) are those types which the majority of people use - web browsers, email clients, music players and such.

Personally, I first and foremost demand a platform where the libraries needed by most applications are available for anyone to use in their applications and modify to suit their needs (the freedoms of Free Software). My second demand is that all general purpose applications used by the majority of people also be Free/Open.

Where I differ is that I do not demand absolutely *all* applications and libraries be Open Source - if someone wants to earn a living by writing and selling a closed source library or application catering to a specialized niche market, then I think they should be able to do so, and I think they should be able to do so while utilizing the general purpose platform libraries at no cost - as long as any improvements or changes to the libraries themselves are returned to the community.

LGPL libraries allow for closed source applications, whereas GPL libraries force applications linking with them to be Open Source. If you want to write closed source software with QT, you have to pay the gatekeeper a significant sum of money - whereas you can do it with GTK for free.

As an aside, I also think fragmentation is bad - I think the whole community should rally behind improving a single LGPL framework like GTK which is free for everyone to use and can be happily shared by all, rather than split efforts between maintaining both GTK and QT.

[_txf_]

I draw two lines:
1) Between the platform and the applications.
2) Between the general purpose and the specialized.

The platform (1) consists of the software libraries and API's needed to construct and execute the majority of applications. General applications (2) are those types which the majority of people use - web browsers, email clients, music players and such.

Personally, I first and foremost demand a platform where the libraries needed by most applications are available for anyone to use in their applications and modify to suit their needs (the freedoms of Free Software). My second demand is that all general purpose applications used by the majority of people also be Free/Open.

Where I differ is that I do not demand absolutely *all* applications and libraries be Open Source - if someone wants to earn a living by writing and selling a closed source library or application catering to a specialized niche market, then I think they should be able to do so, and I think they should be able to do so while utilizing the general purpose platform libraries at no cost - as long as any improvements or changes to the libraries themselves are returned to the community.

LGPL libraries allow for closed source applications, whereas GPL libraries force applications linking with them to be Open Source. If you want to write closed source software with QT, you have to pay the gatekeeper a significant sum of money - whereas you can do it with GTK for free.

As an aside, I also think fragmentation is bad - I think the whole community should rally behind improving a single LGPL framework like GTK which is free for everyone to use and can be happily shared by all, rather than split efforts between maintaining both GTK and QT.

Unfortunately lgpl means that people who want to develop closed source apps don't have to pay trolltech (whoops Nokia). So where do the funds for developing the toolkit come from? The reason why Qt is more advanced than Gtk and that reason is that the people developing it get a return on their investment.

Unfortunately The non glamorous stuff (and frankly really difficult) under linux (minus the kernel) is pretty much permanently under resourced. Qt is not because it is dual licensed.

Frankly, if you're developing commercial closed apps then you should pay to use the toolkit, also, if you're using Qt internally (not planning to sell the app) then you're not required to pay as you're not distributing code.

Basically what you're saying is that it is ok for the app developer to make money from his app whilst using the work the toolkit developers put in and the toolkit developers are not allowed to make money off their own work?

[mlau]

_txf_ pretty much said what I came here to say.