|
2009-01-14
, 17:45
|
|
Posts: 3,397 |
Thanked: 1,212 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Netherlands
|
#12
|
I never understood how somebody who basically agrees with the principles of the GPL2 could object to the GPL3; it's the same principles, only better protected now that time has taught us some lessons.
|
2009-01-14
, 18:01
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#13
|
1) Neither GPLv2 nor GPLv3 protects against GPLed web applications (and fat servers, serving thin clients) with modifications.
The Following User Says Thank You to Benson For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2009-01-14
, 18:38
|
Posts: 356 |
Thanked: 231 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#14
|
|
2009-01-14
, 21:01
|
|
Posts: 3,397 |
Thanked: 1,212 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Netherlands
|
#15
|
Never heard this side. So someone really thinks keeping Qt as GPL will result in more free software then LGPL?
Now I am reading http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html and see FSF opinion shift Anyway, this 'gpl only advantage' does not apply to Qt since it has commercial licence too.
We talked to Sebastian Nyström, Nokia's VP of Qt, who explained that the licensing change was primarily driven by a desire to boost the quality of Qt. The company will be using it internally for a wide range of things and is positioning it as a modern solution for building applications for its own Symbian platform.
Nokia concluded that, in the long term, the benefits of adopting a participatory development model and accelerating development far outweighed the value of the revenue stream that it could generate by selling commercial licenses. The commercial licenses will still be available, however, for developers who don't wish to be constrained by the terms of the LGPL. Nyström says that Nokia intends to take Qt "to the next level" by getting the community involved in improving the toolkit's performance, functionality, and platform support. Nokia will also be hiring additional full-time developers to work on the toolkit. The licensing change is clearly a win for Nokia, application developers, and a large segment of the open source software community.
Also, the Qt open development model and infrastructure will become the main reference for improving the Open Source practices in Maemo.
|
2009-01-14
, 21:28
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#16
|
My take on it is that this has the potention to make Qt far more used hence making it the primary choice for cross platform or platform agnostic development.
|
2009-01-14
, 21:31
|
|
Posts: 2,535 |
Thanked: 6,681 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
@ UK
|
#17
|
|
2009-01-14
, 21:53
|
|
Posts: 3,397 |
Thanked: 1,212 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Netherlands
|
#18
|
|
2009-01-14
, 22:21
|
Posts: 143 |
Thanked: 205 times |
Joined on Apr 2008
|
#19
|
But Qt means c++, which, as anyone who's just spending the better part of a day porting a QT3 app to QT4 and building it on the tablet (by the process of iterative creepingly slow c++ compilation and fixing whatever throws errors), is perfectly horrible.
Anything that makes Qt, and thus c++, be used more places only serves to annoy me. (IMO, C++ should be banished; we have C for a systems language, and anyone wanting to use a high-level apps language should use a high-level apps language, not C with strap-on object-orientation. LISP comes to mind. Did someone order a /. flamewar?)
|
2009-01-14
, 22:40
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#20
|
Qt4 is quite different than Qt3. The porting was actually less hard thanks to OO. If such a change would have been done on Gtk, it probably wouldn't survived it.
My little project on Maemo-extras, mozilla, JDK are examples of C++ codebases using Gtk, Qt->C is probably not very common.
The Following User Says Thank You to Benson For This Useful Post: | ||
What you probably mean is making money from non-free software, using e.g. LGPLed software as a base and adding only some icing.
I don't like that idea.
If people want to make money from non-free software, they should also need to use non-free software as a base. Like with Qt as it used to be: Either GPL or commercial. Use it for non-free projects? Fine. Pay. Use it for free projects? Great! GPL.
I never understood how somebody who basically agrees with the principles of the GPL2 could object to the GPL3; it's the same principles, only better protected now that time has taught us some lessons. But that's a completely different story I only bring up here to make this thread slip completely OT ... Abortion, anyone? Gay marriage? Capital punishment? Or gun control?