Slashdot Mirror

Last I heard, Troll tech changed the lincensing for the QT enviroment, and QT for X11 is now under a QPL/GLP lincense. You can even download it for free at thier download site. They did this less than 2 months ago (since QT 2.2), there was even an article about it on this site.

You only have to pay if you use it to develop commercial/proprietary software (they want you to use the professional/enterprise version for that, thier FAQ has more information on this), you don't have to pay (in fact, you can just use the free version) if you want to run KDE, and you don't have to pay to use it to develop open source software.

If there's something I misread, that feel free to clarify your post. Otherwise, please stop spreading FUD and incorrect/out-of-date infomation, it will make you look smarter at the very least.

Last I heard, Troll tech changed the lincensing for the QT enviroment, and QT for X11 is now under a QPL/GLP lincense. You can even download it for free at thier download site. They did this less than 2 months ago (since QT 2.2), there was even an article about it on this site.

You only have to pay if you use it to develop commercial/proprietary software (they want you to use the professional/enterprise version for that, thier FAQ has more information on this), you don't have to pay (in fact, you can just use the free version) if you want to run KDE, and you don't have to pay to use it to develop open source software.

If there's something I misread, that feel free to clarify your post. Otherwise, please stop spreading FUD and incorrect/out-of-date infomation, it will make you look smarter at the very least.

As a user, I might not care. I want good software. I like Free Software for well discussed reasons (see gnu.org), but I wont get into that now.

Now, consider being a developer. I want to write applications which need more power than a Palm offers me. Alternatives I can buy: devices with Epoc or Windows CE. Let's concentrate on Windows.

Development tools for Windows CE are, hm, not cheap, it's costly to get information about the system, the API is different to everything I know from before. This even counts for Windows for Desktop developers, to a certain degree.

I can use PersonalJava. This might work, but there might be application-specific reasons for not using Java.

Alternative: I can put Linux on my iPAQ. Whow, what opportunities does that offer: I can use plain X. I can use PocketLinux with Microwindows and Java. I can use embedded Qt.

Every of these possibilities has counterparts on Desktops. I have access to documentation. I can use tools I know from before. So it's easier to write applications.

Wait a minute. Applications. Wasn't that the user cares about?

I just bought me an iPAQ, and I'm looking forward to putting Linux on it. This Windows CE stuff is so closed, I can't even sync the build-in calendars with my Linux-system (why use a standard format, when you can use outlook). The Palm is much more open here.

To put it very easy: Linux on iPAQ = Openness of PalmOS + Power of a "Windows powered" device.

Yeah, they'll look for sympathy elsewhere alright: it's called GNOME. GNOME is under the LGPL, making it perfect for companies that want to develope software - and that's why, even though KDE is nicer and better than GNOME, it is currently doomed to fail as a viable desktop.

Let's say that Company A wants to write Product B for Linux, so they look at their options: KDE (Qt), GNOME (GTK+), Motif. What are they going to choose? More than likely, they'll go with the free one - GTK+, meaning GNOME. That's why the GNOME Foundation was first - because it is commerically viable to produce programs for that environment.

To give you some perspective, it costs a third-party application vender around $500 per developer to write programs for Windows - that's assuming they decide to use MS DevStudio (I think you can get just Visual C++ for around $250 - and that is literally everything you need to write for Windows). If you pay around $2500 a year, then MS gives you a damn sweet deal, sending the developer

• A copy of all MS current operating systems (right now, that's Win98, Win98SE, WinNT4.0 SP6, Win2000, Win ME).
• A copy of all MS developement software (IE, DevStudio Enterprise Ed.)
• A copy of all MS Office software (that's right, it includes Office 2000)
• The entire Knowledge Base on CD/DVD
• The entire MS library documentation

In other words, writing commercial software for Microsoft OSes is actually cheaper then writing for Qt!

Compare: MSDN subscription overview, Trolltech licencing.

If you still think this doesn't matter, think again - it is very important from a commerical software house's point of view.

Does anyone know if any PDA people are involved with this?

Does KDE have any plans for the QT Embedded environment?

Mirror of QT Embedded is here:
http://www.flyingbuttmonkeys.com/mirrors/ftp.troll tech.com/qt/embedded/

________________________________________

Ah, but not much else. X + GTK or whatever is fat. Embedded QT is as big as the X server alone on the handhelds.org stuff (which I'm currently running).

If you want to try the QT stuff, it's home page, with downloads is here:
http://www.trolltech.com/pro ducts/qt/embedded/qpe.html

Mirror is here:
http://www.flyingbuttmonkeys.com/mirrors/ftp.troll tech.com/qt/embedded/palmtop/

________________________________________

http://www.trolltech.com/ pro ducts/qt/embedded/qpe.html

Also, floppy-disk and cassiopia demos. And source!

A mirror will be at http://www.flyingbuttmonkeys.com/mirrors/ftp.troll tech.com/qt/embedded/palmtop/ soon!

-M

________________________________________

Also try out the cool demo bootable disks here. --- John

See lots of nice screenshots and download it here:

http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/embedded/qpe. html

From the press release:
Trolltech, creator of the Qt cross-platform graphical user interface (GUI) toolkit, today announced that the current version of Qt/Embedded will be licensed under both a commercial license and an open source license; the GNU General Public License (GPL).

M.

Basically QT is an interface to the windowing system and as such highly platform dependent so "porting" the free linux version would basically involve writing the whole thing from scratch.. not an option..

All of the questions presented in this are available on trolltechs website in faq. Sometimes I wonder if people submitting questions even try to do their own research.. I mean how hard is it to point your web browser from slashdot to say Google or www.trolltech.com .

Basically QT is an interface to the windowing system and as such highly platform dependent so "porting" the free linux version would basically involve writing the whole thing from scratch.. not an option..

All of the questions presented in this are available on trolltechs website in faq. Sometimes I wonder if people submitting questions even try to do their own research.. I mean how hard is it to point your web browser from slashdot to say Google or www.trolltech.com .

Besides, Loki already see Qt as a great option, as documented at:

http://www.trolltech.com/compa ny/ announce/loki.html

--
Warwick

Looks like Trolltech is showing two prices for Qt!

This one costs $1550: http://www.trolltech.com/pr oducts/purchase/pricing.html

and this one's free: http://www.trolltech.com/developer /sharecontrib/

Those bastards! I bet RMS is really pissed now!

Looks like Trolltech is showing two prices for Qt!

This one costs $1550: http://www.trolltech.com/pr oducts/purchase/pricing.html

and this one's free: http://www.trolltech.com/developer /sharecontrib/

Those bastards! I bet RMS is really pissed now!

The only restriction the QPL added is that you couldn't charge for distributing software (which the GPL, surprisingly enough, allows.)

It's the one thing that you'll never get out of an FSF zealot: just what the hell is wrong with the QPL?

6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements:
b. You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use and re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in both machine-executable and source code forms. The recipients must be able to do so without any charges whatsoever, and they must be able to re-distribute to anyone they choose. (emphasis mine)

6. c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one.

Note also:

Choice of Law This license is governed by the Laws of Norway. Disputes shall be settled by Oslo City Court.

Not that there's anything wrong with the license (even RMS says it's a free license, so it must be okay, right? <g>), but IIRC, it was these two parts of it that caused all the brouhaha.

--

A) Yes and no. You do have to pay for the Visual C++ compiler. But you can still download the Platform SDK gratis.

B) Amen, brother!

C) Have you seen the price of Qt/Windows? $1550 for one Professional edition license! Either that, or use Qt Free Edition, and write to an X11 library/server for Windows, which is redundant for obvious reasons.

My big problem with Trolltech is that they consider Windows-compatible and Open Source mutually exclusive. Is it GPL eliteism, or are they just trying to stick it to the "evil empire", developers and users be damned?

Every day we're standing in a wind tunnel/Facing down the future coming fast - Rush

and

"Qt 2.2 to be released"

Chris Hagar

and

"Qt 2.2 to be released"

Chris Hagar

No, it's OK. Qt 2.2 will be dual-licensed, so you have the option of using either the QPL or the GPL, depending on whether your licence was QPL- or GPL-compatible. See the first paragraph of the announcement.

The link is http://www.trolltech.com/c ompany/announce/generalpl.html

Link is http://www.trolltech.com/c ompany/announce/generalpl.html

That links to the old QPL announcement.

Head on over to their website, and you can see on the headlines:

2000 Sep 04 Qt Free Edition goes GPL

Look again!
There are two new announcements; Qt 2.2 released and Qt/Unix 2.2 being released under the GPL.

QT IS NOT PROPRIETARY [...] The QPL is an open source license. QT2 is under the QPL.

Quite right.

There, all solved.

Nononono. It's not that simple. The QPL is seriously flawed. Here's an example for you: nick bits of QT and stick them in, say, Zend. You'd now be breaking the law if you distributed that modified app, under clause 3b, which states that you have to give both "initial developers" the right to create proprietory derivatives of each other's work[*] - a right you don't have the power to grant[**].

In other words, if the QPL takes off then the free software world will fragment into hundreds of legally incompatible apps and code re-use between these apps will die an ugly death.

It might be OK to stick Just Another Unimportant QPLed App into a distribution. But making the whole GUI heavily dependent on something with this broken license is a Bad Idea.

[*]They are required to produce QPLed versions too, incidentally.

[**]The problem here is that the two apps have different "initial developers" and the QPL grants extra rights to initial developers.

"...the fact is that people let themselves be seduced by TrollTech and compromised their open source principles..."

Open Source Cult...? Open Source is about freedom, not politics. KDE developers have the freedom to choose what toolkit to code for. Why do people get their underware twisted into knots for such bushwa? Let KDE use whatever it wants to. If someone loves KDE so much but just can't for the life of them get over the fact that Qt is open source, but a company and not random hackers made it (and made it well), then go forth and carry on with a Qt compatible alternative. Oh yea... you mention one that bombed. Why was that anyways? I think it was because no matter what TrollTech does to Qt... it's free. BSD license anyone? I guess there wasn't any point for Harmony anymore.

"Seduced" by TrollTech? It was the KDE developer's decision to use Qt not TrollTech's. Perhaps the developers were "seduced" by something that was technically superior than what was available. Don't think GTK was always there when Qt was do ya?

"TrollTech's greed and desire for control has doomed Qt and KDE in the long run, much as the other Unixes are doomed in the long run compared to Linux."

No one likes companies. :( That's so sad that people don't feel a company has a right to make money of its software. Are you just jealous you'll never have as much money as Billy G? If TrollTech was so greedy over their code... why are they giving it up for free use? So they want to make money by charging for people to develop commercial closed source software. Let 'em make the money. Sun is a partner of the GNOME foundation. They have their source code opened under a non-GPL license (barring StarOffice at this point). I'm sick of this crap.

"Whatever technical superiorities KDE has currently will be eroded as more developers are piled on to GNOME, or they will become irrelevent as GNOME is good enough for most people."

Heh heh... by reading all of KDE's responses to GNOME... they certainly feel that GNOME will be irrelevant as KDE "is good enough for most people." Most people aren't developers. Most people aren't interested in pissing matches such as this. Most people use what they like because they like it. As long as they like it they'll use it. Same with me.

---
James Crawford

How many volunteers work on the QT project?
.
.
Also in the unrational realm is the constant intermixing of the idea of programming in QT with the idea of programming in KDE. KDE developers can not insist both that KDE is not affiliated with any corporation and that KDE is superior because it is built on QT.

You're missing the distinction between programming with and programming for. Qt is an open-source/free toolkit from Troll Tech. The KDE project uses Qt, along with automake, gcc, the C++ libraries and all the other standard tools. That doesn't make KDE affiliated with Troll Tech, the FSF, Bell Labs, Red Hat or any of the other companies and organizations that make those tools.

Now, several Troll Tech employees contribute to to KDE and a fair amount of code flows into Qt from KDE work. But fundamentally, Troll Tech makes Qt -- the KDE project makes KDE, using Qt.

OT: I needed to make a new dialog last night, and decided to try doing it in Qt Designer. That thing is unreal! A perfectly laid out dialog and clean, readable C++ source with all the signals and slots tied together, in about 10 minutes! 8 of which were spent reading the manual!

---------

Qt is already available under a perfectly free software license.

Domain names have several rules that must be followed.
And so I must wonder if this concern only projects under the GPL? What I fear most is a rise of partisanship in the handling of the assignment of domain names like theses ones, as well as some of the newly proposed extensions like .net, .jobs and the like.
My biggest interest is the handling of projects under GPL-Compatible lisences such as the MPL and the QPL.

I therefore propose not to allow the handling of new domain names, .cx or otherwise, be controlled by a single entity which might be subjected to pressure from interest groups like GNU, with all due respect that I hold for that organization.


--
Kiro

I think Qt/Embedded would be a good choice. It looks like it's exactly right for the job. I saw it running at Linuxtag and, though I didn't take a very detailed look at it, I had a positive first impression of it. Here's the faq if you're interested.

Chris

I think Qt/Embedded would be a good choice. It looks like it's exactly right for the job. I saw it running at Linuxtag and, though I didn't take a very detailed look at it, I had a positive first impression of it. Here's the faq if you're interested.

Chris

Yeah but it's not free (as in speech) and that is one of his requirements. It's one thing to pick a tool because it's a good one, that does almost what you think it should do. However, he has requirements that specify in stone what he requires, and sorry, but nothing exists that would fill them. Else, he wouldn't be creating a new one.

Blah, blah, I know what you going to say. "What about KDE?". Well that is linked to libraries (Qt) that aren't technically Free Software. I'm not worried about Qt pulling out, because of this agreement. Regardless of your opinion about which license suits your requirements, the BSD is not considered Free Software(Tm) and therefore again, would never meet his requirements.

Yes.

11.Using the Free Edition, can I write software for internal use in my company/organization?

The Qt Free Edition is not intended for such use; it is our policy that when you are using Qt for free, you should in return contribute to the free software community. If you cannot do that, you must get Professional Edition licenses instead.

The QPL is still in contradiction to the principles that the GPL was written to uphold, which includes the freedom to use the software for internal purposes. Furthermore, I think the QPL is not suitable for most internal research and developmen use; you must license the commercial version. Be sure you understand exactly what the QPL and Troll Tech require you to do before you invest any time or effort in Qt.

If Troll Tech wanted to have "GPL with a commercial exception", they could simply license Qt under the GPL and offer a separate commercial license for sale like other companies do.

The QPL is at best ambiguous; Troll Tech's FAQ is not:

11.Using the Free Edition, can I write software for internal use in my company/organization?

The Qt Free Edition is not intended for such use; it is our policy that when you are using Qt for free, you should in return contribute to the free software community. If you cannot do that, you must get Professional Edition licenses instead.

The QPL is far closer to the intent of the GPL than the LGPL, which is what I'm assuming you are advocating. All free software library authors should be concerned with is allowing people to write free software.

I'm concerned with not being forced to release software that I develop internally. That is clearly the intent of Troll Tech, and it clearly goes against the goals of the GPL and the LGPL. Here is a recent quote from RMS on the Plan 9 license:

[Plan 9 License:] You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by You if used for any purpose.

[Stallman:] This prohibits modifications for private use, denying the users a basic right

As for "advocating" or "disguising", I'm doing neither. I'm merely stating my opinion that if Qt becomes the basis for the predominant Linux desktop, that will be very disadvantageous for the adoption of Linux as a whole, contrary to the stated goals of the KDE project.

wchar_t is what you're looking for, it's even in the standard.

Problem: still not all compilers support the whole std:: library (for example gcc's stdc++-library is far from complete).

And it would mean that a bug in a vendor's std:: library could lead to arbitrary behaviour in Qt (guess who would get the blame?). Oh, I'll shut up now and just quote from the FAQ:

15. Why does not Qt use STL?

The Standard Template Library, contrary to what the name implies, is not all that standardized (at least not yet); implementations differ, and some systems/compilers do not even have it yet. We prioritize very highly that Qt-based programs should be completely and easily portable across platforms and compilers, so we don't want to put STL-dependency in Qt until it is safe to do so.

As for the string class, in Qt 2.0 there is a brand new QString class which is much more usable and efficient (using implicit sharing instead of explicit) than the 1.x QString, as well as covering internationalization through Unicode. The STL string is less usable and efficient.

Still, it is no problem to use STL together with Qt, if you prefer. QStrings can easily be converted to STL strings and vice versa. Using the Qt tool classes (lists, stacks and so on) instead of the STL classes is optional, not obligatory.

Just imagine for a moment that there's more than one "OSS business model". Heck, what Trolltech is doing now is an OSS business model, just different from what Red Hat.

Whether one is better than the other is a different question, but I don't think you can deny the logic of Warwick's line of reasoning: we don't WANT to rely on programmer's being not "unscrupulous or lazy" (indeed, Larry Wall features "laziness" as one of the programmer's virtues ;-), if we could do that we could rely on offerings like Plan 9 "in the spirit in which they were given".

As has been pointed out there, that's not acceptable. Why use a different measure here? Actually people critisized the early Qt Free Edition license for exactly this reason (resulting in the KDE Free Qt Foundation). Disregarding that earlier criticism now seems like desperately finding something "evil" about everything and everbody that has got to do with Qt in some way, shape or form...

I mean, one of Troll Tech.

All you have to do is to release your software under two different license: one open, that benefit from the Open Source development model, and one closed, whose you sell license to those that want to create (or use) closed-source stuff. This way you can combine best of both worlds.

Note, however, that it's not possible if you use free software code that you don't own. You may need to workaround this by spliting your programs in different parts, to isolate those you don't own and this way always release them under their original license without putting the rest of your work under the same licensing term.

Support means also hot-line and warranties. The "commercial release" will include them in your offer, and the "free release" will just have a disclaimer. Some people wants warranties, even if you swear your program is bugfree. These people will buy your stuff. "Service" dosn't mean you have to obfuscate on-line manuals and add bugs, just that your customer can ease his mind by thinking if your program crash his data, he can sue you.

It is right there ...

http://www.trolltech.com /company/announce/kde-freeqt/index.html

Hey, think a little.

• Else you use native widget set, and then (if this is a cross platform thing) you have functions that merely call other functions. In extenso, you have much overhead.
• Else you use widget emulation, like in KDE with Qt, without uneeded overhead, but without widget set.
• Else you force everyone to use the same desktop, so that only one library is needed, as with Windows.

Sorry if none of these solutions are optimal. I think GUI emulation (like done by Qt) is the best, but it's only my very humble and personal opinion.

Where do I download the Windows version?

from the same place you've always been able to get it from...

Sorry to say, but either you WANT it to be difficult, i.e. troll (though I don't think so really), or you construe things to be much more complicated than the really are.

Instructions for Downloading & Installing KMail

1. Direct your browser to http://www.kde.org
2. Click on the link Konfucius announcement below the heading KDE 2.0 Beta 1 Released
3. Click on the link ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/u nstable/distribution/tar/src or one of the mirror sites
4. Download kdelibs and kdenetwork (no need for kdebase
5. Figure you need Qt too (since it says so below the link!)
6. Direct your browser to http://www.trolltech.com
7. Unpack the tarballs and use ./configure && make && make install, maybe remove everything but kmail from kdenetwork before running configure.

Yes, the list is longer than for Mozilla. OTOH KDE IS much more than one app, it's an environment/application framework.

BTW: your comment about Qt needing to be "linked" certainly doesn't hold true for Qt-2.1.1, maybe you are confusing it with some earlier version?

Maybe it's just my imagination, but doesn't the Trolltech's QT logo look a bit too much like the sign of a former communist superpower? :-)

From the annotated QPL license: If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one.
This is to avoid problems with companies that try to hide the source. If we get to know about it we want to be able to get hold of the code even if we are not users. In this way, if somebody tries to cheat and we get to know we can release the code to the public.

> Can I modify the Qtlib for my own personal and commerical purposes and make a profit off it, or change it any way I see fit and then distrubate the re-modified version, even if this competes with Troll Tech on a commerical level?
Yes. If you intend to distribute your modified version as closed source, you need to buy a special license, but as long as you stick with a QPLed modified version, you can

• Distribute binaries with the same name (libqt)
• Distribute sources with another name (you can just add a prefix to each file with a script).

> Debian is like Jesus walking around in the desert, they know it ALL could be their's, but at what price?
KDE2 looks like a very seducative temptation, I know the Debian team has been looking at it naked in the shower from a small hole in the wall, will Debian abstain from sin, or will they need a tissue?
No comments. I just hope for your mental sanity this is humor.

> Come on, the name of the company is Troll Tech, doesn't there NAME tell your something?
Trolls are mythological creatures very popular in norway. Norvegian giant offshore oil station are also labeled Troll-something. Your argument here is that, as "troll" is a common insult on various h4xx0r forum and newsgroup, the 31337 troll definition is the only one valid.

All that's needed is a clause in the license that says that you aren't allowed to distribute the modified program as source or otherwise.

Troll Tech's QPL already does this; modified source must be distributed as patches.

Or did the kdevelop authors put in an exception clause which they did not document on their web page?
--