Slashdot Mirror


Qt For The Console

lintux writes: "You probably know Qt as the fine toolkit for the less-fine X. Today something cool reached a stable state: Qt for the console. A Qt library port which allows you to port Qt programs to the console! Just imagine a full-featured web browser like Konqueror, on a 386 text-machine! I tried some things, and I never want to use w3m or lynx again, I can tell you that!" Update by HeUnique:While I do approve of the job these guys have done on console QT, I believe they may need to properly relicense their project under the GPL.

5 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Holy crap. by redhatbox · · Score: 5, Interesting


    From the QT-Console home page:

    "You might think we are sick or some console perverts. We do admit, we are console perverts, but consider this: why not? :)"

    As an illustration of just how sick these guys really are, I encourage /. readers to examine the following screenshot: Slashdot home page in Konqueror, ASCII mode. Notice the elegant Slashdot logo rendered in text. That, my friends, is a sure sign of a fiendish mind at work :).

  2. Re:April Fools isn't until tomorrow by The+slack+boy+KIPPLE · · Score: 3, Interesting

    depends where you are in the world.

    it's 01:20 here in london now...

    --
    #Pubgolf. ##it's not about drinking ###it's not about golf #it's about survival
  3. Re:LGPL? YES you can by Glorat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, let me be perfectly clear about this having seen the source to this. Actually, they can license this under LGPL. The reason is the same reason why WINE can be licensed under LGPL and not whatever proprietary licence Microsoft uses

    The reason is, having seen their code, is that they do NOT actually use code from the QT libraries at all but they purport to emulate the interface instead. Any indication to the contrary would be a misccmmunication by the authors

    So basically, since the source code consists of nothing but cout , I am sure their licensing choice is just fine =)

  4. Re:No more need to port to curses by dodald · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Long live Links! (Not Lynx)

    Seriously if you've never used Links, you don't know how cool (let alone useful) texted based web browsing can be.

    --
    101010b 2Ah 52o
  5. Re:Nope - The QPL says you can't. by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Okay here you go:
    • Big whoop the QPL says that. I can pick the GPL version of the license.
    • Besides which, I can do it anyways as the copyright holder.
    • Trolltech is the only company that can come after me for violation of the GPL/QPL, they probably won't if I just got done writing them a check now will they?
    1. Did you know I can make local modifications to any GPL'ed program I want, and link in all kinds of proprietary pieces. It isn't until you distribute binaries of it that you are inviolation of the GPL. If the QPL has that extra term in it, and I have to license it under both, I am pretty sure that is an extra term and it isn't allowable under the GPL.

    Besides which, most of the dual licenses are an either or case, not a both case. Otherwise the Perl's GPL/Artistic license doesn't make anysense, the GPL is the only license because the Artistic license has a superset of the GPL's rights.

    2. I am the original copyright holder of the code. I can re-release any code I wrote under any license I want. With GPL'ed code, I would have to not link to anybody else GPL'ed stuff or I am in violation of their GPL. However, if I wrote all of the original code, I to say lesszilla, my incredibly small 500 line web browser and I link it with Qt using the GPL license. If I try and release lesszilla under a new proprietary license and link with Qt I am in violation if they take me to court. I am still the copyright holder of the original lesszilla code. I can convert the lesszilla code to SPL (Soul-eating public license) which in essense says you owe me your soul if you have one, but you don't owe me any money and I don't owe you the source code. I just can't link the the Qt via the GPL version with the SPL. I could go buy a Qt license and link with that and release it. I am the copyright holder, I can change the license I want to use. I can't force the older GPL'ed version to be non-GPL'ed (I am in violation of the somebody else GPL if I link with GPL'ed code they have the copyright for). I do have to own the copyright for all changes however. So I have to becareful I have all of the documentation to prove I am the copyright holder.

    3. Trolltech isn't stupid enough not to take my money. Depending on how the licensing works for them, they will more then likely charge me the current charges, or get me get me to pay for the license for the time during which I was developing it. They aren't stupid, they want my money, and I want to pay it to them, all that is left is deciding on the amount.