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

Miqt: MIT-licensed Qt bindings for Go

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 92 posts

Re: Miqt: MIT-licensed Qt bindings for Go

#51

Post by ForHackernews »

ikari_pl wrote: post #25
rob74 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm probably oversimplifying things, but for me "permissive license" (MIT, BSD) is equivalent to the term "open source", and "copyleft license" ((L)GPL) "free software". I know that the term "open source" also includes (L)GPL-licensed software, but the "free software" advocates resist being lumped together with software that they perceive to be less free, so they very much prefer "free software".

so less permissive = more free. gives me something to think about.

The freedom prioritized is that of the user, not the developer working at a for-profit company. Copyleft software prioritizes users' freedom by attempting to prevent companies/developers from taking away their rights. (See also GPLv3's anti-Tivoization clauses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization that restrict companies to empower users)

Re: Miqt: MIT-licensed Qt bindings for Go

#52

Post by gpderetta »

rob74 wrote: post #21
jenadine wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not about "open source" vs "free software". This is about "permissive" vs "copyleft"

I'm probably oversimplifying things, but for me "permissive license" (MIT, BSD) is equivalent to the term "open source", and "copyleft license" ((L)GPL) "free software". I know that the term "open source" also includes (L)GPL-licensed software, but the "free software" advocates resist being lumped together with software that they perceive to be less free, so they very much prefer "free software".

I don't know which advocates you have in mind, but the FSF does refer to MIT and BSD as Free Software licenses. For FSF, Copyleft is a desirable property (obviously), but not required by the four freedoms.

Re: Miqt: MIT-licensed Qt bindings for Go

#53

Post by jcelerier »

mappu wrote: post #19
azalemeth wrote: post #11

I slightly lament the rise of MIT or BSD licensed middleware like this. It's undoubtedly great for the developers and organisations in question, but there's undoubtedly some societal good from having GPL or LGPL licensed products encouraging organisations to release their code under a similar license. This already exists for Go and Qt, and the competing library is "soon" to release a commercial license that would be…

> the competing library is "soon" to release a commercial license No, after many years this never became available, and the maintainer went missing, taking the copyright with them. If it was really possible to buy a commercial license it's possible I might not have bothered to make the binding. My hope is that by choosing the MIT license for my bindings, one commercial app in the world will choose to use Qt Widgets i…

> My hope is that by choosing the MIT license for my bindings, one commercial app in the world will choose to use Qt Widgets instead of Electron

I still do t understand this logic. When you combine MIT and LGPL you don't get MIT, you get MIT+LGPL so now you have to take care of both licenses. Electron's LGPL parts don't magically disappear - when you start an Electron app all the things that happen from main() up to executing the first line of your js app code are LGPL

Re: Miqt: MIT-licensed Qt bindings for Go

#54

Post by bmitc »

foresto wrote: post #13
mappu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No(t yet), i've focused on the traditional desktop Widgets toolkit. There are other existing QML/Go bindings you might be interested in. Qt Widgets has a lot of benefits over QML. It is native compiled code whereas QML is interpreted; the native compiler (qmlsc) is proprietary and only available for commercial licensees. If you are happy with a large runtime for an interpreted UI then I'd suggest looking at web techn…

Also, QML exposes only a fraction of the functionality of the Qt Widgets API.

And vice versa.

Re: Miqt: MIT-licensed Qt bindings for Go

#55

Post by bmitc »

p0w3n3d wrote: post #43
mappu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No(t yet), i've focused on the traditional desktop Widgets toolkit. There are other existing QML/Go bindings you might be interested in. Qt Widgets has a lot of benefits over QML. It is native compiled code whereas QML is interpreted; the native compiler (qmlsc) is proprietary and only available for commercial licensees. If you are happy with a large runtime for an interpreted UI then I'd suggest looking at web techn…

I'm really happy to see people _Make Qt Great Again_. This was my first framework I've ever worked as a professional, and it was really good. Moreover I'm a really big fan of natively written windows/linux/mac apps (as opposed to something that will launch a fully fledged browser and consume ~500MB at start). It's really depressing how we all strive to have everything on the web, in the cloud, etc., but have nothing…

Qt Quick doesn't launch a browser.

Re: Miqt: MIT-licensed Qt bindings for Go

#56

Post by michaelsbradley »

prmoustache wrote: post #38
zerr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Just Qt Company hides this as much as they can.

It is only proprietary if you are building proprietary code AND statically link to it but open source/free (LGPL) if you are building software with a compatible license or are linking dynamically. I think it is fair.

LGPL doesn’t forbid linking statically with proprietary code.

Re: Miqt: MIT-licensed Qt bindings for Go

#57

Post by bmitc »

rubymamis wrote: post #35
mappu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No(t yet), i've focused on the traditional desktop Widgets toolkit. There are other existing QML/Go bindings you might be interested in. Qt Widgets has a lot of benefits over QML. It is native compiled code whereas QML is interpreted; the native compiler (qmlsc) is proprietary and only available for commercial licensees. If you are happy with a large runtime for an interpreted UI then I'd suggest looking at web techn…

First of all, I wrote a block editor in QML[1] (the model in C++) that far outperform QTextEdit (part of Qt Widgets) at loading, scrolling and word-wrap resizing of very large documents (think, War and Peace) *with* the additional cost of being a block editor that can include a Kanban board, images, etc. So saying QML isn't performant is incorrect. Secondly, my knowledge about the internal build tools such as qmltc,…

Do you mind me asking if you work full-time on your app, or is it passive income?

The drag and drop looks really nice! Do you have some hints as to how you accomplished that with QML?

Re: Miqt: MIT-licensed Qt bindings for Go

#58

Post by arp242 »

rty32 wrote: post #47
dokyun wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a whole handful of permissively-licensed, feature-matched alternatives to GNU Readline that I suspect only exist due to political aversions to its license. It saddens me that these people would rather waste time treading over the same paths others have just to increase the potential for nonfree software, rather than using that time to write free and useful things.

That's your definition of "useful", not mine. "political aversion"? We are talking about money and business here. If a commercial company wants to ship a product without reinventing all the wheels, they are going to use code with permissive licenses, and skip projects with GPL license or similar in a heartbeat. You could even argue quite the contrary -- when you make your project GPL/AGPL etc, and if it is big/impact…

Apple literally offered the clang/LLVM copyright to the FSF to be released under the GPL. This was basically just ignored.

https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html

Furthermore there were real technical problems with gcc, certainly at the time. There were good reasons to start a new compiler project.

The license was always more of a detail, rather than the main thing.

Re: Miqt: MIT-licensed Qt bindings for Go

#59

Post by [deleted] »

rubymamis wrote: post #2

> Yes. You must also meet your Qt license obligations: either use Qt dynamically-linked dll/so/dylib files under the LGPL, or, purchase a Qt commercial license for static linking. There is this misconception that you can't statically link under the LGPL. From my reading (non legal advice), LGPL supports static linking - you just have to release your object files alongside the binary to allow people to link them with…

[deleted]

Re: Miqt: MIT-licensed Qt bindings for Go

#60

Post by [deleted] »

azalemeth wrote: post #11

I slightly lament the rise of MIT or BSD licensed middleware like this. It's undoubtedly great for the developers and organisations in question, but there's undoubtedly some societal good from having GPL or LGPL licensed products encouraging organisations to release their code under a similar license. This already exists for Go and Qt, and the competing library is "soon" to release a commercial license that would be…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN