Slashdot Mirror
Nokia Makes LGPL Version of PyQt
EtaCarinae writes "Nokia didn't succeed in convincing Riverbank to change its licensing terms on PyQt, and so decided to create their own LGPL'ed version of it. From the FAQ at the PySide site: 'Nokia's initial research into Python bindings for Qt involved speaking with Riverbank Computing, the makers of PyQt. We had several discussions with them to see if it was possible to use PyQt to achieve our goals. Unfortunately, a common agreement could not be found , so in the end we decided to proceed with PySide.'"
Thank you Nokia! Now drop the MOC from QT and everybody might consider your platform.
Not if you want to write commercial software on top of it...
s/commercial/proprietary (or non-free)
The GPL is a commercial license. It clearly permits the licensed software to be sold.
Technically, I could use windows 98 as a platform to process important financial transactions on. It doesn't mean it is feasible.
Just because GPL allows selling commercial software, it doesn't mean that it is very feasible.
Panties Stink!
They really, really stink!
Sometimes they're red, sometimes they're green,
Sometimes they're white or black or pink
Sometimes they're satin, sometimes they're lace
Sometimes they're cotton and soak up stains
But at the end of the day, it really makes you think
Wooooooo-wheeeee! Panties stink!
Sometimes they're on the bathroom floor
Your girlfriend- what a whore!
Sometimes they're warm and wet and raw
From beneath the skirt of your mother-in-law
Brownish stains from daily wear
A gusset full of pubic hair
Just make sure your nose is ready
For the tang of a sweat-soaked wedgie
In your hand a pair of drawers
With a funky feminine discharge
Give your nose a rest, fix yourself a drink
cause wooooooo-wheeeeeee! panties stink!
MOC is terrible, makes QT terrible
1) complicates the build process
2) pollutes the global namespace terribly (emit, signals, etc.)
3) slows rebuild as MOC has to inspect the code and regenerate MOC files if needed
4) cannot understand normal and common C++ code (inner class, templates)
5) causes binding errors that are (maybe not) discovered at runtime
6) doesn't know const char * vs. char const * are the same
7) same goes for any other compatible but not strictly-exact prototype
8) adding one more tool/compiler to code generation (to make, compiler, resource compilers, linker..)
9) complicates porting to emerging or not supported platforms as you have to port MOC compiler first
10) MOC 'invents' its own non-standard non-ISO C++ syntax
11) fragments drive as every MOC dependent file has to be frequently overwritten
12) is redundant as Boost already and clearly shows
Yea, and when somebody does it they get an article on Slashdot questioning their ethics. Good point.
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
Actually, I was thinking that Riverbank sounded like Microsoft... tightly controlling the terms away from true freedom.
Hear the cry of the freeloader! People who advocate copyleft licences are at least aware of competing notions of freedom, emphasizing end-user freedom as the GPL does. Using terms like "true freedom" merely serves to expose either ignorance or the intent to mislead others into thinking about freedoms in the same one-dimensional, selfish sense.
Either way you are phenomenally far off base.
Either way, YOU are a fucking fag. No hiding behind female pronouns for you, sweetheart. Fucking hacker indeed. You = nigger.