The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: libQtCore licensing ?
by M on Friday 09/Jul/2004, @13:42
|
Yes, it would be better if the community wrote a LGPL version of Qt for linux/*BSD, maybe starting with qt-core. I think that earlier or later this will happen. Btw, there is a free-beer version of Qt in Apples WebCore. But only for MacOS X.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: libQtCore licensing ?
by Anonymous on Friday 09/Jul/2004, @14:04
|
> there is a free-beer version of Qt in Apples WebCore
KWQ? You don't know what you're talking about. It's not more than a compatiblity layer.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: libQtCore licensing ?
by M on Saturday 10/Jul/2004, @05:29
|
Of course its not a complete Qt implementation, but its quite big. Qt itself is also wrapping up several libs and interfaces on linux/X11 for example.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: libQtCore licensing ?
by aleXXX on Saturday 10/Jul/2004, @02:17
|
No, I don't think. Then this community would have to follow everything Qt does. Why should we try to take trolltech the business away ? It would be one of the most stupid things we could do.
But LGPLing libQtCore probably wouldn't take any business away from the trolls, but make QtCore an alternative even for closed source apps.
Nobody will buy QtCore if he just wants to write some small tool without GUI and stuff I guess. The business is mainly in the GUI and extensions I think
Alex
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: libQtCore licensing ?
by M on Saturday 10/Jul/2004, @05:39
|
I agree that a lgpl qt-core would be nice. I have rewritten a few Qt classes myself using another C++ library as foundation, and it was not so hard. Maybe one day...
I am not so much annoyed by the fact that Qt is under the GPL and I have to pay to write closed source software, but rather by the fact that Qt is not developed more aggressively. I find it problematic that Qt already depends on glib for instance. This can lead to making the competitors product (Glib/Gtk/Gnome) the de-facto standard and themselves irrelevant.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: libQtCore licensing ?
by aleXXX on Saturday 10/Jul/2004, @06:01
|
Which part of Qt depends on glib ? At least the "ldd mainwindow" didn't show glib.
Alex
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: libQtCore licensing ?
by Justin Karneges on Saturday 10/Jul/2004, @10:09
|
Did he say that publically? A URL would be nice. Of course, Matthias also reads this forum, so maybe he can just confirm here. :)
Along similar lines, another interesting possibility would be a free QtCore for Windows. After all, 90% of QtCore is already freely available on Windows anyway, using code straight from the Free edition. Even the tool programs, like qmake and moc, are free. I doubt anyone would pay for _just_ QtCore, so I say Trolltech should simply make the last bits free and reap the publicity.
Hook 'em on QString while they're young. ;-)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: libQtCore licensing ?
by Matthias Ettrich on Sunday 11/Jul/2004, @12:28
|
I did? I don't even remember having spoken about it, but ok, I might just as well.
The dual-licensing model is based on a simple principle: quid pro quo. Either you give back in terms of code (by being part of an open source community that shares code and knowledge) or you give back in terms of money (by buying a license). The model cannot work with the LGPL, thus we will not do it.
I understand the request was about libQtCore only, but to me there is no difference in principle between libQtCore and other Qt libraries. They both require work to write and maintain, and they both reduce work when being used.
It's a bit like Robin Hood. He could only give to the poor because he took it from the rich. He would probably have gotten great publicity had he given to both the rich and the poor, but I doubt his business would have made it through the dotcom bubble with constant growth, or even be profitable today.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: libQtCore licensing ?
by Eric Laffoon on Monday 12/Jul/2004, @08:31
|
> It's a bit like Robin Hood. He could only give to the poor because he took it from the rich. He would probably have gotten great publicity had he given to both the rich and the poor, but I doubt his business would have made it through the dotcom bubble with constant growth, or even be profitable today.
LMAO!
One can only speculate whether Robin Hood's business model changed or Nottingham's social programs reduced demand. It's possible too that Scottland Yard and Interpol discouraged this romantic tradition, or nobles only carry plastic nowadays. In any event now that Robin Hood is not publicly traded we cannot review his quarterlies and know for sure.
Of course today many of us who follow this noble tradition today are forced to ask the rich to participate, and unfortunately almost nobody thinks they are rich. I wept because I had no 64 bit processor to compile what I downloaded on my DSL... and then I saw the man with a 200 MHz Pentium on a dialup. There but by the grace of a few thousand bogomips go I...
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: libQtCore licensing ?
by aleXXX on Tuesday 13/Jul/2004, @10:40
|
Ok.
Now that libqt is split, will also the commercial license be split (i.e. will it be possible to buy only a QtCore license) ?
Alex
P.S. I still think getting commercial developers hooked with a LGPL QtCore so that they can't live without a commercial QtGui anymore wouldn't hurt Trolltech's business
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
