Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Qt Released For OS X

Posted by timothy on from the merging-venn-diagrams dept.

AxsDeny writes: "It looks like Macslash is also reporting this, but Trolltech is now offering Qt for OS X. Long live cross platform development." Doesn't look like there's a Free version, but there is a non-commerical license called the "Qt Academic License," which "Allows schools and universities to acquire and use Qt for free in relevant courses."

3 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Another good link by wiredog · · Score: 5, Informative

    To a good article at Kuro5hin.

    --

    Best Slashdot Co
  2. I don't mind them charging ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... I just wish they didn't charge so _much_. Never having been a free software zealot, I don't mind paying for software that's truly useful, as this certainly is. But as a starving student, I just can't pay the kind of prices they're charging. I didn't see anything in their academic license section about prices available to individual students. The excellent student prices available on Metrowerks products are one of the main reasons I've stuck with CodeWarrior as my primary dev environment for so long, even though I haven't been wild about their more recent releases in a number of other ways.

    It would be great if TrollTech learned this lesson. Remember, today's poor CS students are tomorrow's pro developers ...

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  3. Re:Qt non-free versions by infiniti99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, they say it's because a GPL application cannot be linked to a closed source library. They say if you want to link your GPL app to Qt/Noncommercial, then you need to include an exception-clause in your license (this is similar to what Linus does to allow commercial dev on Linux. read the Linux license sometime, it's not pure GPL).

    And no, you can't get around this by using the commercial Qt. You aren't allowed to redistribute the source with that either.

    However, IMO this is a strange necessity. I've seen some MFC windows apps claiming to be GPL. After reading this thing about Qt though, I wonder if that is even possible. MFC is closed source. Hell, so is Windows. Does that mean that pure GPL applications on Windows are impossible? That any GPL Windows app is actually GPL-with-exception by default?

    Technicalities aside, if someone releases a GPL MFC app, you are _not_ allowed to make modifications unless you have a valid MSVC++ license. Granted, you can get MSVC loads cheaper than Qt, but it's the same principle.

    Anyway, all I'm saying is Qt on Windows is no less evil than MFC when it comes to GPL. It's just more expensive (but then, it's also way better).