Qt 6.1.1 Released With 150+ Bug Fixes

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Qt 6.1.1 Released With 150+ Bug Fixes

Following last month's release of Qt 6.1, the first point release of this latest Qt6 stable series is now available...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Qt-6.1.1-Released

[DanL]

Don’t expect LTS on the open source version.

It's not an LTS release. How are you not banned yet?

[tildearrow]

Bye 144Hz

No flamewar today

[skeevy420]

Known Issues

• Check that your system meets Qt's requirements:
  https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/gettingstarte...m-requirements
• That dude 144hz at Phoronix
  https://www.phoronix.com/forums/member/109538-144hz
• RTA reported issues from Qt 6.1
  https://bugreports.qt.io/issues/?filter=2287
• Supported development platforms are listed here:
  https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-86432

[kiffmet]

When Qt 6.2 LTS gets released, does this mean that the remaining updates for QT 5.15 LTS will be made publicly available?

[CommunityMember]

When Qt 6.2 LTS gets released, does this mean that the remaining updates for QT 5.15 LTS will be made publicly available?

No (at least how I understand it). Qt 5.15 LTS point releases have moved to commercial only. And while initially Qt 6.2 point releases will be public, that is only until Qt 6.3 is released, at which time further Qt 6.2 LTS point releases will be for commercial customers only. The Qt company is saying to open source projects using Qt to move forward with the public releases if you want all the bug fixes.

[JackLilhammers]

No (at least how I understand it). Qt 5.15 LTS point releases have moved to commercial only. And while initially Qt 6.2 point releases will be public, that is only until Qt 6.3 is released, at which time further Qt 6.2 LTS point releases will be for commercial customers only. The Qt company is saying to open source projects using Qt to move forward with the public releases if you want all the bug fixes.

Open source users become de facto beta testers. It's a shameless dick move, but it's not the end of the world.
However, will they have to release 5.15.3 in a year?

[mroche]

Open source users become de facto beta testers. It's a shameless dick move, but it's not the end of the world.
However, will they have to release 5.15.3 in a year?

According to sections 2 and 3 of their agreement with the KDE Free Qt Foundation, I believe so. Section 10 is also very interesting and hopefully never comes to pass.

https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/..._2015_Text.pdf

Though technically it looks like TQtC has 12 months to release code under an appropriate license, at which point the KFQF can issue a notice to the Company with a minimum 3 month period until they will act on the notice. The Company gets to use that time to rectify the situation.

And the terms are that should something like this come to pass, Qt is released under the 3-clause BSD license, and optionally any other OSI license the Foundation sees fit. Section 10 is a counter situation, for when The Company gets to nullify the agreement with the Foundation.

Cheers,
Mike

[CommunityMember]

However, will they have to release 5.15.3 in a year?

Not necessarily, since they have released 6.1.1 to the public. It gets into the legal weeds of what a bugfix release is, but I believe Qt 6.1.1, which has been release to the public, would be considered an "Important Release" under the contractual terms, and projects that choose not to move forward is not the Qt company's problem, nor does it violate the contractual terms.

I suspect the KDE project, which is currently backporting fixes to Qt 5.15 in a rolling patch set as appropriate, will choose to accept that release of Qt 6.1.1 (and eventually Qt 6.2 and Qt 6.3 and Qt 6.4.....) to the public meets the contractual terms.

[mroche]

CommunityMember

While I agree with what you're saying under 3(i), I'm looking at 3(ii):

twelve (12) calendar months shall have elapsed since a version of Qt was released without a corresponding version of Qt Free Edition being released;

I'm not a legalese expert translator, so I interpret that "corresponding" means "matching". It's entirely possible the KFQF is choosing to interpret it differently.

The way I read the contract, though, it seems TQtC has to satisfy (i), (ii), and (iii) of Section 3 otherwise Section 2.1 can be invoked (under "until one or more of the following circumstances shall have occurred"). And (iv) can technically be invoked at any point in time (assuming the board is unanimous, which is unlikely).

Contracts are always a fun discussion

Cheers,
Mike