From: "Bernhard B" <schluc...@gmail.com>
To: "Jason H" <jh...@gmx.com>
Cc: "Tuukka Turunen" <tuukka.turu...@qt.io>, "interestqt-project. org" <interest@qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
Tukka,I don't think that there is a single Mobile user that finds your reply adequate.It sounds like you're dragging Mobile users along. We need a specific mobile effort to add those mobile specific APIs the platform should have. Without these APIs, my organization will not be able to justify continued usage of Qt. I have to continually defend our selection of Qt. I've never spoken to someone who was happy to have to use Qt. Xamarin, Flutter, and ReactNative are what other developers want to use. I cannot expect to continue to win this fight as Qt falls behind.I'm not the only one. I'm just the Squeakiest wheel. I can't really justify another $1000/yr (1. that's just Indie, not Enerprise, 2. No transparent pricing) after spending $3000 on Qt.I'm begging you to add mobile APIs for:- Device Hardware Control-- Device Button Integration (volume, etc)-- Display Brightness-- Volume Control-- Screen Control (Full Screen/ Nav Buttons, Wake Lock)- Notifications (Push & Local, Desktop?) (Probably the dingle biggest pain point)- iOS NFC (starts at iPhone 7, iOS 10)These all might seem "not that hard", until you consider I have to do it for 3 platforms: OSX, iOS, Android, each with their own tech stack. (ObjC, JNI, Java) This is a huge pain point, considering that is the fundamental problem that Qt claims solve. Except it doesn't... on Mobile. It's not like I'm asking for bleeding edge APIs. Qt started supporting iOS & Android 12th Dec 2013 with Qt 5.2. In the 5 years since, none of the above have made it in and those are pretty basic features. Since that time there were some early iOS accessibilty additions and Android service capabilty. That's it.I'm not asking for every possible mobile API to be supported, just a 80/20. Other developers have their own needs, and I'm in favor of us together coming up with that list, and having Qt commit to the top item(s) each release. That's what I mean when I say I want a transparent roadmap for mobile.Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 at 3:20 AM
From: "Tuukka Turunen" <tuukka.turu...@qt.io>
To: "Bernhard B" <schluc...@gmail.com>, "interestqt-project. org" <interest@qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interestHi,
I focused mainly in the tooling and cross-platform features in the roadmap blog post. There are other items done as well – more than what reasonably fits into a post. Mobile is an area where we are making constant development, just like we do on desktop and embedded.
Currently the biggest new investment goes towards tooling and 3D – both of which have some benefits for mobile as well. This of course eats some development capacity away from other things, but it does not mean nothing else would be done.
Many of our desktop and embedded users also address mobile – in addition to those who address mobile only (or start with mobile). That is the beauty of the cross-platform, with a growing number of users deploying to mobile.
Yours,
Tuukka
From: Interest <interest-boun...@qt-project.org> on behalf of Bernhard B <schluc...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, 22 February 2019 at 14.28
To: "interestqt-project. org" <interest@qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
Many thanks to Tuukka for the Qt Roadmap 2019 blog post (https://blog.qt.io/blog/2019/02/22/qt-roadmap-2019/) - very much appreciated!
As the mobile part was not explicitly mentioned, I assume that it won't be a focusing area for 2019 then? :/
Jean-Michaël Celerier <jeanmichael.celer...@gmail.com> schrieb am Fr., 22. Feb. 2019, 12:09:
> They even included, scripts to build the app. I'm not sure you have to go quite that far to be compliant, but awesome nevertheless.
You explicitely have to:
LGPLv3 4. e): Provide Installation Information, but only if you would otherwise be required to provide such information under section 6 of the GNU GPL, and only to the extent that such information is necessary to install and execute a modified version of the Combined Work produced by recombining or relinking the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version. (If you use option 4d0, the Installation Information must accompany the Minimal Corresponding Source and Corresponding Application Code. If you use option 4d1, you must provide the Installation Information in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.)
And the corresponding GPL part (section 6, emphasis mine) :
The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 11:55 AM René Hansen <ren...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, 13:47 Jean-Michaël Celerier, <jeanmichael.celer...@gmail.com> wrote:
Cisco did it with an app that uses gstreamer (which is under LGPL) : https://itunes.apple.com/ua/app/cisco-jabber/id467192391?mt=8.
They send it on request, with the proprietary part in a static lib (see at the end here :
)
That is really cool. They even included, scripts to build the app. I'm not sure you have to go quite that far to be compliant, but awesome nevertheless. Maybe someone can clarify this further. I.e. Are you responsible for providing a, or instructions for creating a, working build environment, in order to be LGPL compliant.
Best,
Jean-Michaël
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 6:07 PM Sylvain Pointeau <sylvain.point...@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have one example of someone who put a LGPL app in the app store and provided the binary object files?
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 3:58 PM Julius Bullinger <julius.bullin...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21.02.2019 15:44, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> Qt is free (on mobile), free as in liberty, as long as your
> application is free, as in liberty.
> That's basic (L)GPL rules.
>
> Now there's the business rules:
> If you want your (mobile) app to be non-free (as in proprietary), then
> you'll have to pay the Qt company for that. Disregarding the fact that
> you want to make money or not.
Please do not spread this misinformation! As long as you adhere to the
terms of LGPL, you can create non-free, proprietary and closed apps with
Qt (or any other LGPL library for that matter). You only need to make
sure that the user can replace all LGPL parts with their own builds.
The fact that the mobile OS's and app stores make it exceptionally hard
to do that is not an issue with the license terms. If you find a way
that enables the user to replace LGPL parts (for example by dynamic
linking or by making all object files and linking instructions available
on request), that's perfectly valid and legal.
_That_ is a basic LGPL rule.
https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-lesser-general-public-license-v2.1-(lgpl-2.1)
https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-lesser-general-public-license-v3-(lgpl-3)
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
