TrollTech Releases Embedded Qt PDA environment

Justin Davies writes: "TrollTech will be making the embedded Qt environment for PDA systems on Monday available under a commercial and GPL license on monday. The environment will contain an application launcher, window manager and input methods including a virtual keyboard. This provides the first common Linux enironment for PDA systems allowing an easy porting system from the desktop to the PDA."

Comments

Where's the QPL?

[Arandir]

Where is the QPL for QtEmbedded? Why is it now legal to write a BSD program in Qt-X11, but illegal for the very same program to use the very same interface on an embedded device? I really like Trolltech, but I think they have painted themselves into a corner trying to please the FSF.

From the Qt/Embedded FAQ: "t has been almost two months since we released Qt/X11 under the GPL, and no adverse effects have occurred because of it, therefore we felt it was safe to proceed with the GPL version of Qt/E." Well, to play devils advocate, it has been almost two months since they released a dual-licensed GPL/QPL Qt/X11, and no adverse effects have occured because of it. Therefore it is safe to proceed with a dual-licensed Qt/Embedded.

I would hate to have to buy a proprietary commercial license to write non-proprietary and non-commercial software.

Re:Where's the QPL?

[Arandir]

If you BSD license an application that uses a GPL'd library...

Can't do it. It's illegal. I would be sued by Trolltech. You see, the GPL considers mere linkage to be derivation, and requires any application that merely has an "#include <qt.h>" line to be licensed under the GPL. If you use a GPL library, your own code MUST be GPL.

That's why.

But under the QPL, you have a copylefted library that allows *any* Free or Open Source Software application to link to it.

...anyone can still take your BSD code and use it in a closed source application.

Yes, and that's okay with me for my own code. My BSD license gives the user ZERO rights to any applications it links to. The Qt library is still safe under either the GPL or the QPL. But the QPL Qt is safe without dictating to me what kind of house I can build with their hammer.

Re:Where's the QPL?

[Arandir]

The problem is that derivation has a distinct direction.

It's perfectly acceptable for a GPL application to include BSD code (as in the Linux kernel) or link to a BSD application, since the BSD license is compatible with the GPL. However, the opposite direction is not allowed. You may not dynamically link an application to a GPL library and release the application under anything but the GPL, because the resulting executable is considered to be a derivative (in the copyright sense) of the library. And the GPL clearly says that the Program, and any work based on the program, must use the same license.

Section 1 of the GPL requires that the original work always and forever be under the GPL. Section 2 pertains to derivative and collective works. However, section three requires all linking code to follow section 1 AND section 2. So even if I could successfully argue that my BSD program is an "independent and separate" work, and it would easy to do so, I would still have to follow section 1 if I distributed a binary executable even though it is clearly not a verbatum copy of the library.

There are many ways to interpret the GPL, and I personally do not feel that dynamic linkage results is derivation. But the above is how RMS and the majority of GPL developers interpret it.

The Point

[London Weatherman]

Isn't the Palm successful because of the OS it originally runs ? The plethora of free or very low cost software ? Granted, we can hack it because we can, but in this instance, I'll keep mine running the way it's supposed to.

Re:I want this on my desktop.

[dublin]

Framebuffers and hardware acceleration aren't mutually exclusive: Look at the way Sun does framebuffers for the right way (and the way the Linux framebuffer will do it if the developers have the sense God gave geese.)

Re:usability of Linux on an iPAQ.

[Misagon]

I don't have an iPaq, but I think I should mention a few links because I have not seen them in any other comment yet. =)

href="http://www.handhelds.org">www.handhelds.org There is a lot of work under way on modifying X-Windows down to handheld computers. The server has been seriously slimmed down to use a simplified and more powerful rendering model. There is also Clear Type-like font renderer in the works as well as an extension for flipping the aspect (vertical vs. horizontal.) I am not sure as to what who is doing what, but I know that Jim Gettys is involved (he is one of the original authors of X-windows btw.) If you want something that is even slimmer, check out the MicroWindows project, which provides both a win32-like and a NanoX-like interface on top of a slim graphics library.

There is also the Pocket Linux project that is producing a set of applications for handheld Linux.

I want this on my desktop.

[be-fan]

Getting a port of this to the desktop would be seriously cool. Finally, you can mate the selvte Linux kernel to the svelte embedded Qt library instead of X + Qt +KDE and not end up with an ugly bastard child. However, one thing bothers me. If Qt/embedded works with the frame buffer, it means it doesn't use hardware acceleration. That's a travasty! I mean with a little work, this could be so much better (since KDE apps are enough to make a decent system) (for many users) than the system we have today. Are there any plans to allow a hardware acceleration architecture here? I mean QNX Photon does hardware acceleration on a lot of graphics cards, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of embedded systems contain some form of acceleration in their video chips.

Re:But why?

[SilverSun]

Have you actually spend a second and read the article?

But the Qt Palmtop Environment uses Qt/Embedded, so there is no need for an X11 server, no extra client libraries, no separate window manager, no layer-upon-layer of toolkits -- Qt/Embedded works directly with the Linux framebuffer.

Re:The obvious solution

[Arandir]

Preferring one license over another is not paranoia. If you don't like my preference, tough. All I am doing is expressing my opinion that Trolltech should license their embedded tool the same as their X11 tool. It's supposed to be "free" software, so stop trying to make it a one party system. No Florida jokes, please.

Re:Why not fork?

[Arandir]

Because then it would involve work, and we would have nothing left to complain about.

This is an example of GPL "virality" used right

[kinkie]

Their dual-licensing terms are great imo.

You want to develop some GPL software? Sure you can, great. You'll use a great library and toolkit and you'll benefit the world at large, not just your pockets. You want proprietary? Sure, here's the means and here's the fee. Want to try it out? Sure, as long as you don't distribute what you do with it...

Many times GPL's "virality" has been cited as an obstacle against the adoption of Free Software concept and its results (calling them products would not make them any justice). But I think that the path TT took is the classic "Columbus' egg" which can satisfy everybody.

Way to go, TT!

Re:This is an example of GPL "virality" used right

[Ex Machina]

wrong answer. These decrease your freedom as a programmer. The LGPL is superior for technologies like this. With the LGPL you don't have to use the GPL for your code. You can make it commercial, artistic or BSD. QT's licensing is just TroolTech's scam for making lots of bucks off of Linux programmer when they start making commercial apps.

Re:This is an example of GPL "virality" used right

[kinkie]

We have different views.

The point I am trying to make is not giving the developer absolute freedom. For that kind of licensing BSD-like terms are of course the best choice.

What TT's choice did is try to satisfy three very different groups of users-developers:
- those who write Free Software. Those people would already use some free license, and among the free licenses the GPL has a very important role.
- those who write Commercial software. To them, the big cost is in paying developers' wages. A few thousand dollars spent in licenses are usually not even noticeable in their cash flows.
- Troll Tech: they need the money just like anybody else. But Free Software programmers just can't shell that kind of money usually. They'd just move to something else. Those who can, will pay. Those who likely could (and would) not, will not.

Besides, it's in everybody's best interests to get software developed for a platform. If you get a programmer experienced in it, when s/he goes commercial s/he'll gladly shell a few bucks for it. If s/he isn't willing to, s/he can use another toolkit, no problem there. Hell, even Microsoft gives huge discounts to students...

Also, the LGPL is all but deprecated by the FSF AFAIK. Maybe Stallman's stance might not matter to a pragmatist, but it's not something to be discounted that easily. I met him a couple of weeks ago, he was very obviously happy over GPL'ed QT and OpenOffice. The only weak point for the Free Software community is that a software using the QT can't be licensed under BSD or Artistic or whatever different license. Too bad.

Use C++ where it makes sense to do so.

[Christopher Thomas]

OK, so you restrict yourself to using the not "obscure aspects" of C++. Why not just keep using C?

Because there are a number of problems for which object-orienting is the most natural solution, and it makes sense to use a language that has native OO support to implement that solution.

Use C++ where it makes sense to do so. Forcing everyone to use ANSI C is just as silly as claiming that *everything* should be OO. Each has a problem domain to which it is suited, and widget toolkits just happen to lend themselves to an OO implementation.

Yes, you could use function pointers a la GTK, but that gets messy and annoying to maintain as your project changes and grows. I've been there.

Where is the problem with using C++ for an OO task?

Re:But why?

[Ex Machina]

This actually doesn't use X. Widgets like QT or GTK are not inherently linked to X. Its just that the Linux versiosn use X for the underlying layer. The win32 versions use win32 APIs.

trolltech

[xjesus]

did they somehow use the ditributed computing power of trolls to come up with this new OS for PDA's?

But why?

[GrouchoMarx]

OK, Qt is all well and good. But why? X Windows programming, via any system, is already a big, convoluted mess, whether you use GNOME, Qt, or whatever. Why bring any of that to the palmtop? You have a tiny memory space, a tiny processor, and very limited screen space. 99.9% of the Qt programs out there wouldn't be able to port to the PDA form factor anyway, regardless of what code support there is. Maybe X Bill, but that's about it.

Please, we need to stop thinking of the Palmtop as just a PC with a small screen. It is a completely different way of thinking. Take 95% of what you know about desktop programming and design and throw it out the window. Now you can start designing for the PDA. Microsoft forgot to do that, and guess what? 3rd time, and it's still not charmed.

--GrouchoMarx
My other account is CmdrTaco

Re:But why?

[micahjd]

Please, we need to stop thinking of the Palmtop as just a PC with a small screen. It is a completely different way of thinking.

Exactly! Just take a look at the Palm computers vs a M$ "Handheld PC". M$ tries to make it easy for developers to transition, but this just brings along all the memory leaks, bad code, and screen-cluttering UIs that the desktop has.

Now imagine PalmOS with a fully configurable client/server GUI, multitasking, and a Linux kernel. That's what I've been trying to do for the past seven months or so with PicoGUI.

Re:But why?

[Vajsvarana]

But QT/Embedded doesn't rely on X!!! The embedded version uses in fact accesses directly the video framebuffer.

I cite from trolltech:
"Since Qt/Embedded is not based on X11 it has substantially lower memory requirements than X11. By picking and choosing features, the memory demands of Qt/Embedded can be tuned from 800 Kb to 3 Mb in ROM"

BYE - Vajsvarana

Re:But why?

[be-fan]

What's wrong with C++. It's not like Qt is based on multiple inherited, RTTI & exception-using, virtual iterators. A lot of it is just like C with looser variable declaration rules and structures that contain functions. There is nothing inherntly bloated about C++, its all a matter of what your application uses. Ideally, the development platform for this would use a subset of C++, with STL, RTTI, and exceptions disabled. By getting rid of some of the obscure aspects of the language (which you shouldn't be using anyway unless you have a damn good reason) you can get something more structured than C, without the bloat often found in C++.

Re:But why?

[IsleOfView]

Instead of asking "Why are we bringing X to the PDA", shouldn't we be asking, "Why aren't we bringing PDA technology to the desktop"? I mean really---Why does a PC have to be more difficult to use than a PDA? Why do we have to worry about 'shutting down properly'? When I want to shut my Palm OS device down, I just hit the power button. When I want to turn it back on, I hit the power button again, and it comes back exactly as it was before. PDAs are fast, stable and do their job well, all on extremely limited resources. (I only have experience w/ Palm OS devices) Why can't our desktops do the same?

Re:But why?

[be-fan]

A) C++ is only inherently more bloated because the standard library is bigger. It is slower because of language features like virtual functions. Otherwise, similar C an C++ code are about the same in performance.

B) When was the last time you saw a compiler that did only C?

C) The debugging arguement is iffy. If you do it right, C++ is only marginally harder to debug than C.

D) An idiot coder will shot himself in the foot whether you give them a 9mm pistol (C) or an Uzi (C++)

E) You forget to mention some of the advantages C++ has. It is a good deal more structured, and some of the automatic stuff is very useful. For example, I'm messing around with a USB joystick driver. I needed a structure to keep track of information for non-linier joysticks (MS Sidewinder) If I had been able to use C++, I could just edit the contructor to set my pointer to NULL, and edit the destructor to free the corrections structure. Instead, I had to look through the whole code for everywhere the structure was destroyed and fix it manually.

GNOME on PDAs?

[sheckard]

Whatever happened to the port of GNOME to PDAs? I remember reading about it here awhile ago but haven't heard anything lately. Personally, I think both groups have a ton of work to do trimming stuff down so it's usable on a 30MHz processor with little RAM. I just can't wait until we start having GNOME vs. KDE flamewars on an iPaq!

Thanks, but...

[IGnatius T Foobar]

What they really ought to do is release a GPL'ed version of Qt for Windows. This would allow the free software community to write cross-platform applications. It would expand the market for such applications, and TrollTech would be able to sell commercial Qt licenses for the inevitable closed source apps that would emerge.

I really can't think of a single reason why they wouldn't do this. Are you reading this, Haavard? The market for cross-platform apps is going to explode when Linux surfaces on the desktop. Qt can be a part of this. Please give it some consideration.
--

Re:God Damn Licensing Issues!

[91degrees]

I think thats their stategy. If you want to GPL everything, then you can. Its good for Trolltech because it gets KDE on a lot of systems. If people want to write closed source apps for it then they have to pay for the libs. The benefit is that the software plays nicely with KDE.

This is a problem for people who want to use a different free licence,

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Object oriented code with C?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is a troll, but I've seen the same idea spouted by people who obviously believe it.

C++:
mybutton.setVisible(true);

C:
button_setVisible(mybutton, true);

in english:
C++:
noun verb
C:
verb noun

if the difference presents you with serious problems, I'm quite happy not using anything you write.

OO is a mental abstraction, not a language. C is flexible enough to provide the primitives for easy translation of OO concepts into code, as does C++. Its just that C compilers are much much more portable and solid than C++ compilers (at the moment, at least), and the GNOMErs want to run everywhere.

As a related rant:
If you call yourself a programmer, you NEED to be well versed in at least 3 or 4 languages (different languages, not C++ and Java, or LISP and Scheme). Preferably with very divergent conceptual foundations. People who just learn one language let that language color their approach to solving problems. Knowing many languages allows you to think in terms of abstractions, and simply translate that down to whatever language you're using. And it allows you to see past these trivial language wars.

PDA

[Mr_Icon]

I don't think calling someone a "Cutie" qualifies as a Public Display of Affection. And frankly, I'm sick and tired of all those sexual harrassment laws...

Qt Palmtop Environment URL

[MartinJ]

See lots of nice screenshots and download it here:

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

Re:Qt Palmtop Environment URL

[jryland]

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

Why not...

[jjr]

What is stopping gtk from doing the same thing. A programmer willing to do it. If people are complaining about then let them do something about it. But I can not program is a common response THEN LEARN I say or find some who can pay them or convince them it is the thing to do.

Re: Cutie

[PhilHibbs]

Funnily enough, "Cutie" was the name of one of the original PDAs, Sam Slade in the 2000AD comic strip "Robohunter" had a little spherical yellow belt-mounted computer called Cutie.

Re:QT possibilities with PalmOS

[pos]

Try the Agenda!

Runs linux, fltk (16 shade greyscale), full tcp/ip stack, serial port, and should be able to load qt... in theory. I haven't gotten mine yet but the developer version is only ~$180, Flashable, and ships Real Soon Now(Tm)

I'm gonna try to get Qt on it as soon as I get it.

have fun!
-pos

The truth is more important than the facts.