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

31–40 of 64 posts

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#31

Post by Grishnakh »

joezydeco wrote: post #10
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.

The LGPL thing is not really the issue here. It's how Trolltech/Nokia/Digia/QtCo approached the payment of a commercial license. It's always been explained to me by the sales people that "you cannot switch licensing models mid-stream". So if you're planning to go commercial, you start commercial. It's not really about closing the deal as much as making sure the Trolltech developers were paid during the time you neede…

But do you even need a commercial license to sell your product commercially? It's LGPL, so surely you can just keep the Qt library LGPL. If you're not changing anything at all in Qt (and you really shouldn't be...), and you don't care about getting support (the docs are good enough for you), then why do you need a commercial license at all?

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#32

Post by Spivak »

0xfeba wrote: post #27
ori_b wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Nope, that's explicitly the loophole that *GPLv3 family of licenses were created to fix.

> With LGPLv3 it is explicitly stated that the user also needs to be able to run the re-linked binary, and that sufficient installation information must be provided.

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#34

Post by adrianlmm »

fs111 wrote: post #11
karmicthreat wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, that was my understanding of it also. I think they are trying to make the argument that once the your code is written under LGPL, its LGPL forever and can't have another license.

If that was true, then QT would violate this principle itself and could not sell you a commercial license.

Qt doesn't violate this principle, cause it is double licensed, Digia is just not using the LGPL version.

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#35

Post by FigBug »

ronjouch wrote: post #28
ori_b wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rec…

You absolutely can't use GPL libraries like this. If you use a GPL library you are required to release your entire application source code under a GPL compatible license.

With LGPL libraries I find a lot of developers aren't aware of the relinking requirement, but it does get enforced. That's why you won't find LGPL libraries being used in the iOS App Store and why you need to buy a commercial license for Qt for mobile.

Of course none of this applies to server apps since they aren't distributed to users. You can use all the GPL code you want.

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#36

Post by sigzero »

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…

What's his reasoning? As long as you purchase the commercial license prior to releasing why should they care?

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#37

Post by giovannibajo1 »

pjmlp wrote: post #33

Interesting the focus on QML. It feels like the Qt Company is pushing C++ down the stack, with QML getting the main focus as application development language.

I don't think it has to do with language but rather with interface patterns. Qt Widget was made to do native desktop apps like Word; QML was made to do touch apps like on mobile. Embedded has shifted to adopt touch screen and copy interface patterns from mobile (where touch based interface were innovated first).

You don't want a Word-like app in your car dashboard, but a iOS-like app.

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#38

Post by c-smile »

jventura wrote: post #18
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.

You are correct. The only serious frameworks nowadays are Qt or Electron if you're targeting the cross-platform desktop. There's also wxwidgets, although its python 3 bindings are still being built. Personally, I'm keeping my eye open on libui ( https://github.com/andlabs/libui/ ) as it is already possible to do some basic things with it. However, it is pretty much in alpha state and I'm slowly writing the Python bin…

"Regarding Electron, I am writing an application on it, but it is too god damn heavy in terms of memory, disk space and boot time,"

Try Sciter HTML/CSS engine then (http://sciter.com). It is a monolitic DLL (4-8 Mb) without external dependencies. Works on Win/Lin/OSX and even on Raspberry Pi 2 - http://sciter.com/sciter-on-raspberry-pi-2/

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#39

Post by pjmlp »

giovannibajo1 wrote: post #37
pjmlp wrote: post #33

Interesting the focus on QML. It feels like the Qt Company is pushing C++ down the stack, with QML getting the main focus as application development language.

I don't think it has to do with language but rather with interface patterns. Qt Widget was made to do native desktop apps like Word; QML was made to do touch apps like on mobile. Embedded has shifted to adopt touch screen and copy interface patterns from mobile (where touch based interface were innovated first). You don't want a Word-like app in your car dashboard, but a iOS-like app.

Except that on iOS you can do everything in Objective-C/Swift if you feel like it.

Same applies to Android, UWP and even Tizen with their respective native languages.

So it is a conscious decision not to provide C++ APIs besides the old QtWidget and make developers use QML and its compiler instead, as far as I understand it.

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#40

Post by distances »

Dlotan wrote: post #30
distances wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good to hear!
Post reply on HN