Digia Officially Releases Qt 5.0

[GreatEmerald]

Drop your bullshit sir, Wikipedia page says its proprietary.

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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/stat...27503100489731
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.

[mcxprovider]

Hello, thanks for ti snews i will definetly visit new option thanks and keep updating me.

[cbamber85]

Well I'm a massive Qt fan and use it in just about everything. I'm going to wait until Qt 5.2 or until the module structure has settled down more, and there's more of a consensus of good QML <-> C++ workflow.

As far as the licensing stuff goes - I don't give a shit.

[zoomblab]

Well I'm a massive Qt fan and use it in just about everything. I'm going to wait until Qt 5.2 or until the module structure has settled down more, and there's more of a consensus of good QML <-> C++ workflow.

As far as the licensing stuff goes - I don't give a shit.

That's my plan too

[funkSTAR]

As far as the licensing stuff goes - I don't give a shit.

How nice. Since Qt is less focused on Linux these days and more focused on Apples platforms you go there. You will fit right in; semi open source and 100% non-caring about freedom. Im pretty sure most linux users will be happy to loose such fanboys. Go buy a mac and head to the nearest starbucks for endless hipster-hacking on Qt.

One less hipster on linux, and one more clueless "me dont give shit" guy converged to the poo-poo platform. Everybody wins!

[cbamber85]

Since Qt is less focused on Linux these days and more focused on Apples platforms you go there. You will fit right in; semi open source and 100% non-caring about freedom.

I use Qt and Linux because I consider them to be the best tools for the job, if Apple came up with something better - then I would use that instead. I only care about the licensing if it impacts the ability of the tool to do it's job, and so far for Qt, it hasn't.

There are a lot of people who care deeply about the open-source philosophy, and I respect that. But I am a pragmatist: computers and software are just tools to perform tasks. Anything beyond that - I don't give a shit.

Oh and by the way, I've never owned an Apple product and haven't bought a Starbucks coffee in a decade. Just so you know.