Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Qt 5.0.1 Released, Fixes Bugs

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,814

    Default Qt 5.0.1 Released, Fixes Bugs

    Phoronix: Qt 5.0.1 Released, Fixes Bugs

    Six weeks after releasing Qt 5.0, Digia has today declared the release of Qt 5.0.1 as the first point release of this new tool-kit...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI4ODc

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Basement
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Oh they forgot to fix bug no. 1: "Qts CLA fucks freedom and fragments the community". They really need to do that. Maybe they just dont care about developers freedom and securing copyleft. Oh yeah they need to fix bug no. 2: "Closed source Qt modules must be liberated".

    What a bunch pf freedom hating posers. Anyone supporting this shit are nothing more than worn out groupies who didnt learn the lesson from Oracle. Well maybe they like the submissive part where their freedom is being fucked. I hope for their recovery though. Regaining enough self respect and saying NO to crap like CLA is tough though. Stockholm syndrome will also cause people to actually defend this kind of abuse. Sad but true. Im praying for the victims.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funkSTAR View Post
    Oh they forgot to fix bug no. 1: "Qts CLA fucks freedom and fragments the community". They really need to do that. Maybe they just dont care about developers freedom and securing copyleft. Oh yeah they need to fix bug no. 2: "Closed source Qt modules must be liberated".

    What a bunch pf freedom hating posers. Anyone supporting this shit are nothing more than worn out groupies who didnt learn the lesson from Oracle. Well maybe they like the submissive part where their freedom is being fucked. I hope for their recovery though. Regaining enough self respect and saying NO to crap like CLA is tough though. Stockholm syndrome will also cause people to actually defend this kind of abuse. Sad but true. Im praying for the victims.
    Funkstar just to fuck with you im gonna keep saying this every single time you bash Qt. The difference between Digia and Oracle? Oracle didn't have a contract with KDE that said if $CURRENT_OWNER_OF_Qt ever fucks over the Qt Community they are legally obligated to give KDE a BSD Licensed version of Qt with all closed source modules included with a Copyrigt assignment BACK to KDE.

    There is LITERALLY no danger to using Qt thanks to that contract because they CANT pull an oracle and if they TRY to then we would have Digia-Qt and KDE-Qt and I'd be willing to bet that KDE-Qt would become the new Qt standard

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Basement
    Posts
    389

    Default

    So our first victim of Stockholm syndrome is here to defend Oracle2. How sad. Well KDEs paper deal aint worth shit. Oracle2 has plenty room to fuck freedom.

    Trailing open source version by a year.
    Keep releasing closed source, closed governed modules.
    Refocusing on non free platforms.
    Be idiots.
    Stop developing, refuse new community commits and make Qt a cashcow.
    Etc.

    It is really easy. If Oracle2 really cares about freedom, they would stop the horror of CLA.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funkSTAR View Post
    So our first victim of Stockholm syndrome is here to defend Oracle2. How sad. Well KDEs paper deal aint worth shit. Oracle2 has plenty room to fuck freedom.
    Funky, your time would be better spent building a better alternative than going all Westboro Baptist on us.

    Fact is, Qt is by far the best free toolkit around, it is fully GPL, multi-platform, stable, featureful, supported by a lively community and has been leading Linux desktop innovation since 1996.

    If you want to replace it with something else, make sure that you have a fully GPL toolkit that is better.

    In general, the correct way about doing Free Software development is to offer a solution which is better. Your way seems to be FUD, sabotage, and trolling. Simply contribute code to competing toolkits until they are better, it is much more effective. Your current approach has been failing for more than 15 years, you should have learned by now.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,929

    Default

    BTW, which compiler do you use?

    GCC requires copyright assignment. LLVM can be closed by anyone, which is worse than GPL+CLA.

    I wait, let me guess. You use the Fedora default and will kill everyone who runs anything that is not Fedora default? Same as always then.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funkSTAR View Post
    What a bunch pf freedom hating posers.
    Don't you support Steam?

    Quote Originally Posted by funkSTAR View Post
    Anyone supporting this shit are nothing more than worn out groupies who didnt learn the lesson from Oracle.
    Who actually had issues with Oracle? I haven't -- the open source software they make is good, actually (eg. VirtualBox).

    Quote Originally Posted by funkSTAR View Post
    Well maybe they like the submissive part where their freedom is being fucked.
    Nope.

    Quote Originally Posted by funkSTAR View Post
    Stockholm syndrome will also cause people to actually defend this kind of abuse. Sad but true.
    Will the AMD syndrome save people from the eviiiil NVIDIA? Sad but true.

    Quote Originally Posted by funkSTAR View Post
    Im
    I'm. FTFY.

    ----

    While we're at toolkits, can I have my GTK3 Windows port please?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    6

    Exclamation Don't talk about freedom

    Quote Originally Posted by funkSTAR View Post
    Oh they forgot to fix bug no. 1: "Qts CLA fucks freedom and fragments the community". They really need to do that. Maybe they just dont care about developers freedom and securing copyleft. Oh yeah they need to fix bug no. 2: "Closed source Qt modules must be liberated".

    What a bunch pf freedom hating posers. Anyone supporting this shit are nothing more than worn out groupies who didnt learn the lesson from Oracle. Well maybe they like the submissive part where their freedom is being fucked. I hope for their recovery though. Regaining enough self respect and saying NO to crap like CLA is tough though. Stockholm syndrome will also cause people to actually defend this kind of abuse. Sad but true. Im praying for the victims.
    So, your version of freedom is your way or no way ?! Why shouldn't anybody have freedom to release code under any license they please ? And who is >forcing< you to use their code ?

    In my observations, the Stockholm syndrome applies very strongly to gnome/gtk groupies. Usually they are the one who keep whining about Qt forever, with utter disregard to facts and common sense. I do not feel abused running Qt based s/w. And I am even stronger in my opinions than any damn asshole. And I have the reasoning to back them.

    I do believe s/w should be free but I do not begrudge people who make money from it, as long as people are not >forced< to use and pay for it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,105

    Default

    funkstar has a point, though it may get a bit hard to see with the attitude.

    The Qt agreement with KDE will not prevent Qt from becoming open-core, or being slowly chipped away from the edges. It's not limited to new closed-source only modules, but they way I believe it is it also allows them to do something like this:

    1. You contribute some new feature. You sign their CLA.
    2. They ship it as a closed source module, and it never appears in the open source edition.

    They are fully within their rights to do that, are they not?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    The Qt agreement with KDE will not prevent Qt from becoming open-core, or being slowly chipped away from the edges.
    Nothing that is currently available as part of the Qt Project, nor anything submitted to the Qt project, can ever become closed-source. Further, nothing that touches the core of Qt can ever become closed-source.

    The worst that can happen is that Digia releases some modules they created and that have always been closed-source as closed source. However, this can never be a large portion of Qt because, again, anything that integrates too tightly with the core of Qt has to have an open-source license.

    Digia has no special rights in this regard, anyone anywhere can create closed-source modules for Qt and sell them at whatever price they want. Digia doesn't have any special privileges in this way. Technically, anyone who wanted to could give their closed-source modules away to whoever buys a closed-source license to Qt, but of course only Digia has a motive to do this.

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    1. You contribute some new feature. You sign their CLA.
    2. They ship it as a closed source module, and it never appears in the open source edition.

    They are fully within their rights to do that, are they not?
    No, they cannot do this. They are allowed to add additional licenses, but they are not allowed to remove existing licenses. So if you submit your code under the standard LGPL/GPL dual license, they can add whatever additional licenses they want, but they cannot remove your LGPL/GPL license. No part of Qt that has an open-source license can ever have that license removed
    Last edited by TheBlackCat; 02-01-2013 at 10:02 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •