Just this change in general reads: "We're going to annoy and inconvenience as much users as possible so that they buy our stuff"
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 7:09 PM NIkolai Marchenko <enmarantis...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The second change is that a Qt Account will be in the future required > for binary packages. > > I would like to raise a serious security issue with this change. > Oftentimes, you need qt binaries within a VM. Also, oftentimes, VM is > stubborn and refuses to accept pastes. > This means people will use much simpler passwords for their Qt accounts, > possibly similar passwords with their other stuff so that they don't have > to remember too much. > All because QtC is a dick and restricts binary downloads for no valid > reason at all. > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 7:01 PM Benjamin TERRIER <b.terr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Quoting The Qt Company itslef: >> >> Thanks for your feedback to the new online installer asking for a Qt >>> Account signup. We have evaluated the feedback received via the blog, >>> various discussion forums, irc and other channels. Based on all these >>> comments and discussions with our partners we realize that this was not our >>> finest moment. >>> Preventing the growth and usage of Qt in the open source community is >>> not what we want to happen. We did already see a nice jump in the number of >>> Qt Accounts, >>> but it was never our intention to make our valued community and >>> contributors upset with us or stop using and contributing to Qt. >>> *We clearly ill-calculated how asking for a Qt Account with the online >>> installer would make our users feel*. A mistake. Sincere apologies. >>> >> [...] >>> *We do hope that this eases your concerns, and that we can continue with >>> your trust*. >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.qt.io/blog/2015/05/06/changing-qt-account-to-be-optional-in-the-online-installer >>> >> >> So apparently the trust of the QT community os nt a concern anymore... >> >> Le lun. 27 janv. 2020 à 15:42, NIkolai Marchenko <enmarantis...@gmail.com> >> a écrit : >> >>> I am afraid I do not have other words for this model than : absolutely >>> disgusting and a complete dick move. Especially login requirement for >>> binaries. >>> I don't even understand how distros are now supposed to keep qt code >>> safe since constantly pushing qt version up is recipe for problems and >>> there will be no critical bugfixes to branches that distros were stabilized >>> at. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 5:35 PM Lars Knoll <lars.kn...@qt.io> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> The Qt Company has done some adjustments to the Qt will be offered in >>>> the future. Please check out >>>> https://www.qt.io/blog/qt-offering-changes-2020 . >>>> >>>> The change consists of three parts. >>>> >>>> One is a change in policy regarding the LTS releases, where the LTS >>>> part of a release is in the future going to be restricted to commercial >>>> customers. All bug fixes will (as agreed on the Qt Contributor Summit) go >>>> into dev first. Backporting bug fixes is something that the Qt Company will >>>> take care of for these LTS branches. We’ve seen over the past that LTS >>>> support is something mainly required by large companies, and should >>>> hopefully help us get some more commercial support for developing Qt >>>> further. >>>> >>>> The second change is that a Qt Account will be in the future required >>>> for binary packages. Source code will continue to be available as >>>> currently. This will simplify distribution and integration with the >>>> Marketplace. In addition, we want open source users to contribute to Qt or >>>> the Qt ecosystem. Doing so is only possible with a valid Qt Account (Jira, >>>> code review and the forums all require a Qt Account). >>>> >>>> The third change is that The Qt Company will in the future also offer a >>>> lower priced product for small businesses. That small business product is >>>> btw not limited to mobile like the one Digia had some years ago, but covers >>>> all of Qt for Device Creation. >>>> >>>> None of these changes should affect how Qt is being developed. There >>>> won’t be any changes to Open Governance or the open development model. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Lars >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Development mailing list >>>> Development@qt-project.org >>>> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Development mailing list >>> Development@qt-project.org >>> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Development mailing list >> Development@qt-project.org >> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development >> >
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development