Hi Stephan, On 28 September 2012 15:07, Stephan Deibel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Matti Airas wrote: > >> > I'm almost 100% certain that the PSF hosting some resources for PySide > won't come with a requirement about licensing or process for PySide. Or at > least that's my impression from having been on the PSF board some years > ago, and from everything I've observed since. It certainly is true that a > contributor agreement is needed for anything in Python itself and the > Python standard library, but PySide would not go into the Python standard > library. > I was discussing the issue with some PSF board members back in August 2011, and that was the message then. > That said, is the problem with Qt Project or a temporary one caused by the > transfer from Nokia to Digia? > It's probably really neither. I think the problem was more due to the overworked Nokia Qt organization having to deliver to an unpublished closed project, while at the same time having to cater for the open Qt Project. The open project probably couldn't be sufficiently prioritized - it wasn't an issue with Qt Project itself, IMHO. Ever an optimist, I actually think Digia has more interest in Qt Project in general and in PySide too. I got a while ago in contact with Lars Knoll (Qt lead maintainer), and he wanted to resolve the issue ASAP. Also talked to Tuukka Turunen (Digia Qt Commercial Director), and he wanted to resolve the issue without delay, too. So, let's hope for the best. I don't care too much either way but maybe in the long term being part of > the Qt Project will be less hassle (if really part of it, and not easily > orphaned again as seems to have happened now). Me too, with the same condition. :-) Cheers, ma.
_______________________________________________ PySide mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/pyside
