We would like to announce our release of CopperSpice 1.1.0. We have added and changed several things including a modification to to QMap to user defined comparisons. We have a timeline others may be interested in viewing in our overview documentation. We will have API documentation uploaded by Aug 15.
http://www.copperspice.com/docs/cs_overview/timeline.html Barbara spent a good deal of time reviewing the CLA for Qt. We appreciate the work Thiago and Lars have done on the CLA and contribution guidelines. On every thread she read and with people she spoke with, there was always several who expressed concerns. We even had a nice chat with Tobias Hunger about this issue. Our view as well as the view from many other developers, is that the CLA gives the Qt Project the freedom to take any and all submissions and incorporate them into the closed source version. We feel this goes against the share and share alike principle of community based open source software. From the countless local developers in the Silicon Valley area we have communicated with, Qt is not typically viewed as a community project. There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach, it just did not fit our paradigm. We are speaking at CPPCon in September and our intent is simply to explain the CLA did not work for us. The main purpose of our presentation is to present CopperSpice and offer C++ developers an alternative GUI library. Ansel On 7/3/15 12:52 AM, Simon Hausmann wrote: > On Monday, June 29, 2015 10:51:25 PM Ansel Sermersheim wrote: >>> There is always CopperSpice the Qt fork which uses C++11. They've >>> got rid of moc and plan to replace Qt containers with std ones. >>> Afterwards maybe they will add support for namespaces to their >>> peppermill source convertor utility. >> I am one of the developers of CopperSpice and I would like to >> elaborate on our project. Our initial release of CopperSpice was in >> July 2014 with our target audience being our local C++ Users Group in >> the San Francisco Bay area. We wanted to explore the interest in >> CopperSpice and obtain feedback regarding the steps we took to remove >> moc. Our full presentation in February 2015 was well received and >> attended by several prominent people. > I for one welcome your efforts. I think it's great that you're trying out new > things on the shoulders of Qt. To me this feels healthy and I'm at this point > not worried about fragmentation. Experimentation is something we should > encourage, even if those experiments happen in deep core parts of the > framework. I'm also glad to see that you're sharing your work with the rest of > the development community on github. > > It would be great if some of your improvements, some of your innovations could > - in the future - find their way back to Qt. It's not evident at this point > how exactly, but I think it would be good to keep it in the back of our heads. > > > That said, I did see the slides of your presentation in February 2015 and I am > disappointed about the slide with the heading "Why we developed CopperSpice". > It says that one of the reasons was that "Libraries not developed as a true > open source project". This is disappointing for me to read. Thiago, Lars and > others who have worked on the governance rules of Qt have done tremendous work > to establish the true open source umbrella, especially by learning from other > projects and taking the experience into account when formulating the > contribution and governance guidelines. > > I hope that in future presentations of your project you are not going to give > your audience the impression that Qt is not a true open source project. > > > Simon _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development