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

Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

blog.qt.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 64 posts

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#21

Post by karmicthreat »

ausjke wrote: post #7
karmicthreat wrote: post #3

So I'm remaking a product and was approaching qt about the commercial version. The rep was very insistent that I can not develop an internal prototype using the open source license and then move to the commercial license. So that makes qt pretty unattractive to me since I have to pony up cash and hope it's good. What I would like is something like electron that can run on a frame buffer. What's the current state of t…

Electron might not be "fast" enough for many serious GUI applications? That been said, I also am struggling with finding a non-Java cross-platform GUI dev platform. The selection pool boils down to between QT and Electron indeed these days.

Electron is probably fast enough for my purposes, just I wouldn't call using for an embedded device easy. You need to have x running for it. It doesn't support chromium ozone and KMS yet. Also it has a pretty big footprint. I'm targeting the RPI compute module so I don't have a ton to work with.

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#22

Post by FigBug »

ausjke wrote: post #7
karmicthreat wrote: post #3

So I'm remaking a product and was approaching qt about the commercial version. The rep was very insistent that I can not develop an internal prototype using the open source license and then move to the commercial license. So that makes qt pretty unattractive to me since I have to pony up cash and hope it's good. What I would like is something like electron that can run on a frame buffer. What's the current state of t…

Electron might not be "fast" enough for many serious GUI applications? That been said, I also am struggling with finding a non-Java cross-platform GUI dev platform. The selection pool boils down to between QT and Electron indeed these days.

There is also JUCE, but it's more focused on audio application development. https://www.juce.com/

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#23

Post by FigBug »

Nokinside wrote: post #16
karmicthreat wrote: post #3

So I'm remaking a product and was approaching qt about the commercial version. The rep was very insistent that I can not develop an internal prototype using the open source license and then move to the commercial license. So that makes qt pretty unattractive to me since I have to pony up cash and hope it's good. What I would like is something like electron that can run on a frame buffer. What's the current state of t…

Why can't you ship commercial version with LGPL? It's LGPL not GPL? I mean, if you don't need to modify the Qt-library, you don't need commercial license. You just need to provide link to the Qt-sources.

You also need to make it so the user can replace the Qt binaries with a later / modified version which may not be possible on an embedded device.

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#24

Post by wdroz »

ausjke wrote: post #7
karmicthreat wrote: post #3

So I'm remaking a product and was approaching qt about the commercial version. The rep was very insistent that I can not develop an internal prototype using the open source license and then move to the commercial license. So that makes qt pretty unattractive to me since I have to pony up cash and hope it's good. What I would like is something like electron that can run on a frame buffer. What's the current state of t…

Electron might not be "fast" enough for many serious GUI applications? That been said, I also am struggling with finding a non-Java cross-platform GUI dev platform. The selection pool boils down to between QT and Electron indeed these days.

Kivy isn't well know but I use this often : https://kivy.org/

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#25

Post by ronjouch »

FigBug wrote: post #23
Nokinside wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't you ship commercial version with LGPL? It's LGPL not GPL? I mean, if you don't need to modify the Qt-library, you don't need commercial license. You just need to provide link to the Qt-sources.

You also need to make it so the user can replace the Qt binaries with a later / modified version which may not be possible on an embedded device.

Really? Why? Is this something applicable to all commercial software using GPL/LGPL components?

Which clause of the GPL/LGPL makes you say that, or is there prior judgement that resulted in making such a demand?

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#26

Post by ori_b »

ronjouch wrote: post #25
FigBug wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also need to make it so the user can replace the Qt binaries with a later / modified version which may not be possible on an embedded device.

Really? Why? Is this something applicable to all commercial software using GPL/LGPL components? Which clause of the GPL/LGPL makes you say that, or is there prior judgement that resulted in making such a demand?

This one:

d) Do one of the following:

0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.

1) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at run time a copy of the Library already present on the user's computer system, and (b) will operate properly with a modified version of the Library that is interface-compatible with the Linked Version.

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#27

Post by 0xfeba »

ori_b wrote: post #26
ronjouch wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Why? Is this something applicable to all commercial software using GPL/LGPL components? Which clause of the GPL/LGPL makes you say that, or is there prior judgement that resulted in making such a demand?

This one: d) Do one of the following: 0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Sou…

> Will operate properly with a modified version

Sounds like all you have to do is prove your build on your dev machine works with newer versions. Up to the user to update the library on the target machine!

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#28

Post by ronjouch »

ori_b wrote: post #26
ronjouch wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Why? Is this something applicable to all commercial software using GPL/LGPL components? Which clause of the GPL/LGPL makes you say that, or is there prior judgement that resulted in making such a demand?

This one: d) Do one of the following: 0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Sou…

Thanks for digging this up for me :) . However,

0) leaves room for interpretation: when it says "to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work", should we read this as "the very same Version, modified to accommodate some needs while keeping API compatibility in mind" or a much-broader "any later Version, maybe even upstream, that may have received drastic API changes" ?

1) has boundaries: you are supposed to be able to "operate properly with a modified version of the Library __that is interface-compatible__ with the Linked Version". This notion of interface-compatibility seems here to prevent an attacker from saying to a commercial developer: "Here's Qt 42.0, now you will update your code for free for me so that it runs on it". Doesn't it?

More broadly, do you know of any lawsuit where these points were used to successfully prove non-GPL compliance and require more work from a commercial user?

EDIT I'm asking this (and my initial question) because it seems such a clause w/should have absolutely deterred commercial developers from using GPL libraries at all. Not starting a flamewar, I know MIT/BSD/Apache libs are generally more reassuring and popular in commercial software, but GPL code keeps being used by commercial software under the basic "We'll mention usage of the GPL lib in the docs, and will either leave the lib untouched or publish our modifications" promise. This condition as you interpret it seems much more chilling, I'm surprised to hear about it and would like to understand how severely it's enforced.

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#29

Post by ausjke »

wdroz wrote: post #24
ausjke wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electron might not be "fast" enough for many serious GUI applications? That been said, I also am struggling with finding a non-Java cross-platform GUI dev platform. The selection pool boils down to between QT and Electron indeed these days.

Kivy isn't well know but I use this often : https://kivy.org/

Kivy looks neat, it seems geared towards python-games.

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#30

Post by Dlotan »

distances wrote: post #12
lultimouomo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like FUD* - Qt's LGPL is LGPL without modifications, so it does not have any quirk. Is it written in the commercial license that you cannot buy it if you have used the LGPL license? * Not accusing you of course; I'm totally convinced that it can come from a misguided sales rep trying to close a deal as early as possible.

Qt-as-the-company has always made it very clear that you can't switch your Qt LGPL/GPL project to a commercial one if you didn't start with the commercial Qt license from the beginning. You're right, it does sound a bit nasty. No, I haven't read the license myself. It's been brought up multiple times on official Qt blog comments and mailing lists, though. Edit: checked it now, and it's clearly written at https://www.…

At my last company we had this situation. But they are more than happy to sort this out for free if you take a license for the next 2 years.
Post reply on HN