Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Qt and Open Source

qt.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: Qt and Open Source

#131

Post by j1elo »

justinclift wrote: post #130
j1elo wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also always pressed "Skip" on the Qt Creator standalone installer for Linux. But the Skip button doesn't exist any more.

The offline installers seem to work: http://download.qt.io/official_releases/qt/ At least, after disconnecting the internet connection then ignoring the subsequent error (ironic for an "offline" installer!), it doesn't require a Qt account.

That's exactly what I ended up doing, but I hope we'll agree having to do tricks like that in order to use an installer is not... ideal

Re: Qt and Open Source

#132

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

badsectoracula wrote: post #122
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You won't get any support of the "big money" unless the library is at least LGPL so it can be used in closed source applications. GPL is primarily for the idealists, not for business. Right, of course; hence the failure of Linux and the dominance of the BSD family. /s

Haven't you heard? Sony's Playstation and Nintendo's Switch use FreeBSD, which somehow is good - especially for the consumers buying those products.

I wouldn't say that game consoles use FreeBSD so much as that they use chunks of code from BSD; I mean, the Switch is apparently using a microkernel, so I doubt that it's all that close.

But yes, using permissively-licensed components absolutely is* a good thing, including for the users, who get higher-quality software with less dev time and lower cost of development. Obviously I'd prefer that it was all GPLv3, but given that the alternative in practice is probably fully-proprietary software from scratch, I think BSD is better than nothing.

Re: Qt and Open Source

#133

Post by detaro »

kovac wrote: post #128
detaro wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about all the people not working at Qt Company that wrote most of the code? Qt company immensely benefits from the work done by others under the condition it remains also available under open source licenses.

This is a good point but I'm not going to be too quick to comment on those developers. Because they may be working on paid products and they contribute to the upstream project when they find certain features missing. I like opensource, I myself am a Linux user. I just like a world where perhaps individual devs can build nifty useful software that we pay a small fee for and use. This way the small guys can benefit. Un…

Many contributors aren't. And even if they are, there is a clear open license they rely on, and Qt company is in the unique position to be allowed to sell exceptions to that. Companies actually contributing to open-source they use is a good thing.

Qt Company is also a 300+ employee company with 8-digit revenue. They are not some small shop trying to survive, they are a corporation that over-promised growth to their shareholders and now is trying to squeeze rules that have existed for 20 years to turn some part of the open-source ecosystem into paying customers, threatening to risk the entire open ecosystem around it for this, which includes many small shops and individuals.

Re: Qt and Open Source

#134

Post by mmargerum »

mkl wrote: post #71
mmargerum wrote: post #31

I really want to use Qt for a project but between the absurd commercial cost and them playing games with licensing i'm going with either wxWidgets or Lazarus.

If wxWidgets and Lazarus are options, why isn't using Qt under LGPL an option?

Because QT can always move the goalposts. Like only offering LTS support for licensees. I'm already paying enough cash to another VC Vulture (Embarcadero) for Delphi. I've been looking to move my pascal code over to lazarus

Re: Qt and Open Source

#135

Post by mmargerum »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #81
mmargerum wrote: post #31

I really want to use Qt for a project but between the absurd commercial cost and them playing games with licensing i'm going with either wxWidgets or Lazarus.

Quality wise Qt is way ahead of wxWidgets.

Ought to be for what it costs. If I go down the wxWidgets path i'll help improve the quality by fixing things.

Re: Qt and Open Source

#136

Post by mmargerum »

stagger87 wrote: post #84
mmargerum wrote: post #31

I really want to use Qt for a project but between the absurd commercial cost and them playing games with licensing i'm going with either wxWidgets or Lazarus.

You can download and use Qt desktop widgets for free in your commercial application.

As long as you don't need LTS support. Im done with commercial development tools. I'd rather endure issues with an open source project that I cant help fix/improve.

Re: Qt and Open Source

#137

Post by kovac »

detaro wrote: post #133
kovac wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good point but I'm not going to be too quick to comment on those developers. Because they may be working on paid products and they contribute to the upstream project when they find certain features missing. I like opensource, I myself am a Linux user. I just like a world where perhaps individual devs can build nifty useful software that we pay a small fee for and use. This way the small guys can benefit. Un…

Many contributors aren't. And even if they are, there is a clear open license they rely on, and Qt company is in the unique position to be allowed to sell exceptions to that. Companies actually contributing to open-source they use is a good thing. Qt Company is also a 300+ employee company with 8-digit revenue. They are not some small shop trying to survive, they are a corporation that over-promised growth to their s…

I see, thanks for the clarification and it makes sense.

Re: Qt and Open Source

#138

Post by justinclift »

j1elo wrote: post #131
justinclift wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The offline installers seem to work: http://download.qt.io/official_releases/qt/ At least, after disconnecting the internet connection then ignoring the subsequent error (ironic for an "offline" installer!), it doesn't require a Qt account.

That's exactly what I ended up doing, but I hope we'll agree having to do tricks like that in order to use an installer is not... ideal

Very much agree.

For now we (sqlitebrowser.org) will keep with the easy approach of using the official Qt installers.

If Qt does something even further dumb though, we'll likely move to compiling Qt ourselves. And probably then make installers (.msi/.dmg) for anyone else that wants it too. ;)

Post reply on HN