Slashdot Mirror


Qt Becomes LGPL

Aequo writes "Qt, the highly polished, well documented, modern GUI toolkit owned by Nokia, will be available under the LGPL starting with version 4.5! It was previously only mainly available under the GPL and a commercial license. Selling licenses was an important part of Qt under Trolltech as it was the company's main source of income, but Trolltech is a fruit-fly compared to Nokia, who want to encourage and stimulate the use of Qt Everywhere [PDF]. This is fantastic news for all commercial developers looking to create cross-platform applications without the need to buy a $4950 multi-platform license per developer."

12 of 828 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Hello Moto by ShieldW0lf · · Score: -1, Troll

    Wow, that's crappy news. There's a whole group of people out there who couldn't afford the commercial license and were trying to make their business/development work around the GPL who now no longer have any need to make the effort, and therefore won't.

    Thanks Nokia.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  2. Re:Hello Moto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

    Version 3, 29 June 2007

    Copyright &#169; 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>

    Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
    Preamble

    The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.

    The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.

    When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

    To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.

    For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

    Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.

    For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions.

    Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.

    Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

    The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow.
    TERMS AND CONDITIONS
    0. Definitions.

    "This License" refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.

    "Copyright" also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of works, such as semiconductor masks.

    "The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each license

  3. Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Trolltech?

    Trolls actually develop software?

  4. Re:I'm not a copyright lawyer by torstenvl · · Score: 1, Troll

    A BSD-licensed program cannot use a GPL'd library, either. GPL is license-incompatible with everything else, not just closed-source.

  5. Re:time to port gnome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I am told, though I have not tried it, that it is harder to develop multithreaded programs in GTK than in Qt.

    Nope.. it's probably easier in fact... but that's not the point here. Lots of people compare GTK programming in C, with Qt programming in C++.

    Qt programming in C++ is quite nice (not counting the MOC mess horror). GTK in C looks horrible, but with the C++ bindings it looks nice. GTK is a more - umm - bindable (for want of a better word) toolkit... it is shockingly easy to make bindings for. There are still all the issues around the C++ ABI which makes KDE (NOTE: not Qt itself, although it affected) such a horrible big-blob-o-code and a disgusting mess written by people who've never done a day's computer science.

    So it's not as simple as licensing. However, this release is good news. There are a great many nice things about Qt (which is why it is quite popular for mobile stuff)... we'll really just have to see what comes out of it all. A unified desktop is not, I suspect, one of them... at least not for a good long while. Still, it may revitalise KDE's future - which was already looking bleak, but after the v4 debacle is/was looking desperate. This might give it another chance.

  6. Re:Strategy fail by FishWithAHammer · · Score: -1, Troll

    You'd be the first I've seen. Kopete is terrible.

    --
    "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
  7. Re:Strategy fail by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 0, Troll

    Bzzt, wrong. I don't want to be using different apps when "integration is important". I want it to work. That's one of (many) reasons I don't use a Linux desktop.

    --
    "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
  8. Re:time to port gnome! by jbolden · · Score: 1, Troll

    Color me ignorant, but aren't there language bindings that allow you to use Qt in C?

    Probably but every binding I've seen for QT sucks, including the commercial binding for Java that trolltech themselves wrote. Note that Trolltech even admits it sucks. QT is designed top down and bottom up as a C++ library not as a library that happens to be implemented in C++. QT gets advantages from not having to have language abstraction but also gets disadvantages in that binding are: really buggy and complex or low featured.

    I think the Gnome developers are being fair. If you use QT you want to use C++.

  9. Re:time to port gnome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Troll

    Crazy libraries... you are an idiot. GNOME/GTk has always been split along functionality grounds into separate libraries - why... because those libraries can be used in other apps without everything else, plus it makes maintenance and development easier. KDE doesn't do this... why... it's because of C++ and the ABI stability issues surrounding it, plus the fact that the average KDE developer tends to be a 17 year old fanatic whose experience of coding comes from Visual Basic. Hence the KDE model of massive libraries with everything and its dog lumped together.

  10. Re:Strategy fail by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 0, Troll

    I agree. Hence why it is my primary desktop, even though I really would like a Linux desktop that didn't suck.

    (I'm amused that the post you replied to was modded troll. Do people really think that Linux integration doesn't suck?)

    --
    "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
  11. Re:Let Joy Be Unconfined by netpixie · · Score: 0, Troll

    Let's put it like this: Since we migrated our software to GTK, the free support I've had from the GTK mailing list has been head and shoulders above any "support" I ever had from Trolltech, and that was when we were paying them.

    Obviously you are a happy camper, and I'm pleased, and I'm even more pleased that you never ended up in the situation we did where the "guarantee that someone is going to answer" failed to materialise.

    The tuth is, paying Trolltech only ever increased your chances of getting a decent answer, it never guaranteed it.

    The happy situation now is that they can carry on providing the same crappy, random, non-deterministic, substandard, unhelpful "support" as they have been doing all along, but now they won't be charging through the nose for it.

    Which can only be good.

  12. Re:Hello Moto by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 0, Troll

    Disagreeing with you isn't trolling, buddy.

    --
    "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."