A Better Qt Because of Open Source and KDE

#1

Post by t4h4 » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 6:34 PM UTC

A Better Qt Because of Open Source and KDE
olafsw.de

Re: A Better Qt Because of Open Source and KDE

#2

Post by jbk » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 7:21 PM UTC

> Background is the wish of The Qt Company to change some of the contract provisions. It is still a bit unclear which ideas exactly they are pursuing

I think this is the reason of the timing of this post.

Because else, this post is just reminding the existing contracts around Qt.

Re: A Better Qt Because of Open Source and KDE

#3

Post by shmerl » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 7:41 PM UTC

It would be good for KDE to get stronger backing, but I've heard RedHat avoids backing KDE and focuses on Gnome, due to aversion¹ to contributor agreements², is that correct in that case?

1. https://opensource.com/article/19/2/cla-problems

2. https://www.qt.io/legal-contribution-agreement-qt

Re: A Better Qt Because of Open Source and KDE

#4

Post by giancarlostoro » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 7:47 PM UTC

> In case The Qt Company would ever attempt to close down Open Source Qt, the foundation is entitled to publish Qt under the BSD license. This notable legal guarantee strengthens Qt. It creates trust among developers, contributors and customers.

Woah, I had no idea about this. I wonder what kind of new changes would take place if Qt were BSD licensed, such as languages like D embedding it as a solution for UIs as part of the standard library (they already do this for SQLite and Curl).

Re: A Better Qt Because of Open Source and KDE

#5

Post by positronium » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 7:48 PM UTC

A better Qt already exists. It's called Electron.

Re: A Better Qt Because of Open Source and KDE

#6

Post by hoistbypetard » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 7:50 PM UTC

jbk wrote: post #2

> Background is the wish of The Qt Company to change some of the contract provisions. It is still a bit unclear which ideas exactly they are pursuing I think this is the reason of the timing of this post. Because else, this post is just reminding the existing contracts around Qt.

Can you briefly explain (or link an existing explanation) a summary of the changes the Qt Company is asking for, to someone who's interested but not intimately familiar with the details?

Re: A Better Qt Because of Open Source and KDE

#7

Post by neilsimp1 » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 7:51 PM UTC

positronium wrote: post #5

A better Qt already exists. It's called Electron.

I'll bite. Define "better" here.

Re: A Better Qt Because of Open Source and KDE

#8

Post by snarfy » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 7:52 PM UTC

positronium wrote: post #5

A better Qt already exists. It's called Electron.

laughs in gigabytes

Re: A Better Qt Because of Open Source and KDE

#9

Post by cosmic_quanta » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 7:53 PM UTC

neilsimp1 wrote: post #7

positronium wrote: post #5

A better Qt already exists. It's called Electron.

I'll bite. Define "better" here.

I also would like to know how "better" is defined.

Is it developer ergonomics? That's the only thing I can think of, and even then that's debatable.

Re: A Better Qt Because of Open Source and KDE

#10

Post by ognarb » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #3

It would be good for KDE to get stronger backing, but I've heard RedHat avoids backing KDE and focuses on Gnome, due to aversion¹ to contributor agreements², is that correct in that case? 1. https://opensource.com/article/19/2/cla-problems 2. https://www.qt.io/legal-contribution-agreement-qt

At KDE, we don't require signing CLA to contribute, this is a requirement in our manifesto[1]. But contributor can assign their right to the KDE e.V. if they want using a Fiduciary Licensing Agreement[2].

[1]: https://manifesto.kde.org/commitments.html

[2]: https://ev.kde.org/rules/fla.php