> On Nov 9, 2016, at 7:30 AM, Marco Martin <notm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday 08 November 2016 18:47:06 Jake Petroules wrote: >>> I was planning to keep it a KDE project, probably as a tier 1 framework. >> >> That seems like a bad idea. Let's submit it to Qt so that everyone can >> benefit and it can be kept better maintained alongside Qt and for all >> platforms. > > Being maintained as as an upstream Qt project, may be appealing, yes. > However, aslo it being a KDE project everyone can benefit.
Everyone, as long as they use LGPL. That's not everyone. > we plan to keep it > multiplatform and with no external dependency other than Qt modules (that's > what KDE framework tier 1 means). A big reason is actually that it would be > quite easier to contribute to it. And when we do the work ourselves because we'll eventually have to, your work will be obsoleted and have been for nothing because no one will have a reason to use it when the upstream solution will be maintained by the Qt Project and on by default. Whereas if we work *together*, no one wastes time and we have a unified experience for everyone. All this does is fragment Qt, and look how well fragmentation has worked for Android. > > -- > Marco Martin > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development -- Jake Petroules - jake.petrou...@qt.io The Qt Company - Silicon Valley Qbs build tool evangelist - qbs.io _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
