Re: [Development] The place of QML
On 5/12/12, Robin Burchell wrote: > Let me try explain: as you should already know, some of the work on Qt > is being funded by commercial licensees (via digia) to work on what > those commercial licensees want them to work on - already - _as a part > of the project you're proposing to abandon_. This has nothing to do > with Nokia. > > Now, if they're already here, it clearly doesn't need a fork to enable > that to happen, as it's happening already. If someone (you, digia, > Paul McCartney for all I care) have work they want in Qt, then they're > free to push that forward - nobody will stop it, unless there is a > solid technical grounds for that. Relevance? Qt... the Qt Project/Trademark... Nokia... encourage you to contribute. They want to resell your contributions :). They will also give it back to you and to everyone for free (monetary + libre) under the LGPL. > A fork doesn't really gain you anything tangible you don't already > have, It regains creative control over the use of revenues generated through the support of the product (qt, renamed). Trolltech may have been in the red, but that doesn't mean it would have stayed in the red. And if would never have seen a profit, then why would Nokia have it? > other than some 200-300 fewer people working on your fork, > meaning you don't have any of their years of Qt expertise in reviewing > your changes, plus the pains of having to run infrastructure (VCS > hosting, website, mailing lists, autotest infrastructure to prevent > regressions - across three major platforms at a minimum), make > releases, merge changes back in, develop and market new branding, etc. Yea, that does kind of suck. But it isn't a total loss. The fork would still be able to regularly pull from Qt-Nokia and benefit from all the money thrown at that. The opposite does not hold true: Qt-Nokia could not pull from contributions applied directly to the fork. > You're correct that this is how business works: Nokia's business is > selling mobile devices (and services) - Digia's is in selling > consultancy. Digia has customers who pay them to work on features and > bugs that their customers need, Nokia does not. It is worth noting that Digia's interest is ONLY in selling consultancy. There is no R&D department at Digia. They do client work and also perform support for Qt through bugfixes etc. Nokia's R&D department is off busy trying to solve Nokia's problem: Their bottom line. Mobile. They do this by producing QML: The Toy Programming Language... in hopes that Trivial Farting Apps don't die off soon (they won't) On 5/12/12, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On sábado, 12 de maio de 2012 21.57.17, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote: >> On 05/12/2012 08:28 PM, d3fault wrote: >> > whereas the point I'm trying to make is that the Qt Project generates >> > *enough* money based purely on Commercial Sales (which mostly just >> > boil down to support anyways -- the LGPL is good enough for *most* >> > Commercial uses) to drive it's own development. >> >> Are you kidding here? > > Doesn't matter whether he intended to be kidding or was being intentionally > > wrong. I was unintentionally wrong, but it doesn't matter. A small team working on Qt for a company (whose core customer is Qt users: developers) in the red is better than a large team working on Qt for a bigger company (whose core customer is NOT Qt users: it's mobile phone sales), also in the red (and probably redder!!). On 5/12/12, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On sábado, 12 de maio de 2012 14.28.49, d3fault wrote: >> Again and again it is mentioned "if you want it done, code it >> yourself". But my response to you is that we are the majority (of Qt >> users (developers who use Qt)) and you have an obligation to code it > > No, you're not. > > Developers like you might be the numerical majority, but when it comes to > number of products developed and shipped to customers, I'm pretty sure that > no > one will come close to "next billion". The "next billion" toy mobile app market apps Coded by beginners who like QML/JS and see it as superior to Qt/C++ because it's "easier" The core Qt user (developers) prefer a C++ GUI API... but Nokia pushes QML instead. > Not to mention that I know of a few proven cases of companies shipping "a > few > million" that are very happy with QML. I'm very glad there were 'a few' companies that are happy with QML. I know even more that are happy with C++. > I also resent "Nokia still owns Qt". No, it does not. Many people, including > > me, worked really hard to create the Qt Project. It's no more Nokia's than > anyone else in that sense. The Open Source releasing* of the Qt libraries by the Qt Project and/or Nokia (Qt SDK) doesn't change the fact that you're giving Nokia an irrevocable license to sell/sub-license your contributions. It just so happens that when they give you (distribute-with-qt) your contributions back to you, they are now under the LGPL license. When you give contributions to The Qt Trademark/
Re: [Development] UDS feedback
On Saturday 12 May 2012 22:01:09 Sergio Ahumada Navea wrote: > Hi, > > > 1. Qt SDK vs Ubuntu repo install - Currently, Qt SDK is a separate > > download from Nokia website. Ubuntu packages creator and Qt. This > > could cause confusion as to which to choose. I think the decision made > > here was that this is not entirely solvable since Qt SDK contains much > > more than creator and Qt (it has the sysroots and toolchains required > > for the devices). Is it possible for us to bundle sysroots and > > toolchains separately? That way, ubuntu repos can be the definitive > > place to download creator and qt. > > Are you saying that I'll have to download Qt 5 for my Fedora 17 from an > Ubuntu repository ? I think I didn't understand this point. I beleive this was only related to Ubuntu user, But you would have the same "problem" with every distribution. On Fedora, one would typically download Qt from a fedora repository. Each linux distribution will do its own package. > > > 2. Rename our qt5 tool binaries - the binary names of moc, uic, qmake > > conflict in qt3 and qt4. Now with qt5, we will have another conflict. > > Is it possible to rename all our tool binaries to be moc5, qmake5? Are > > Qt4 qmake and Qt5 qmake completely compatible (I think not). Ossi, > > comments? > > Why not to rename qmake (from Qt3 and Qt4) as qmake-qt3 and qmake-qt4 > respectively in the distribution ? That is not a bad idea. But this is leaving the problem to the distributions. Then all the distributions will have to solve this problem again. And they might use different ways, leading in inconsistencies accross distributions. We probably would like to avoid fragmentation. Another solution for moc and uic could be to move them to some libexec path (as they are only supposed to be called by the build system) > > 4. gerrit does not have a patch download system. For the moment, you > > can use gitorious like > > http://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtbase/commit/f1ea4ed3d4b45b2eda0a695c61f743cec > > c0644da?format=patch > git fetch https://codereview.qt-project.org/p/qt/qtbase > refs/changes/45/26045/1 && git format-patch -1 --stdout FETCH_HEAD > > You can get this link from the Web UI If I understand the problem here, Ubuntu would like easy way to get patches they can backport into their packages. I think gerrit is not the tool for that, so i don't see that as an issue. -- Olivier Woboq - Qt services and support - http://woboq.com ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] The place of QML
On sábado, 12 de maio de 2012 17.07.40, Stephen Chu wrote: > On 5/12/12 5:01 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On sábado, 12 de maio de 2012 22.28.40, Thiago Macieira wrote: > >> Developers like you might be the numerical majority, but when it comes to > >> number of products developed and shipped to customers, I'm pretty sure > >> that > >> no one will come close to "next billion". > > > > Correcting myself. There is one who has already: > > http://www.videolan.org/vlc/stats/downloads.html > > Are they switching over to QML? jk... :) I don't know. But that's the interesting question: what is the VLC team's take on the direction of Qt and in this thread in particular? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027 Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] The place of QML
On 5/12/12 5:01 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On sábado, 12 de maio de 2012 22.28.40, Thiago Macieira wrote: >> Developers like you might be the numerical majority, but when it comes to >> number of products developed and shipped to customers, I'm pretty sure that >> no one will come close to "next billion". > > Correcting myself. There is one who has already: > http://www.videolan.org/vlc/stats/downloads.html Are they switching over to QML? jk... :) ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] The place of QML
On sábado, 12 de maio de 2012 22.28.40, Thiago Macieira wrote: > Developers like you might be the numerical majority, but when it comes to > number of products developed and shipped to customers, I'm pretty sure that > no one will come close to "next billion". Correcting myself. There is one who has already: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/stats/downloads.html -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027 Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] UDS feedback
On sábado, 12 de maio de 2012 12.13.09, Girish Ramakrishnan wrote: > 5. QPA plugins + packaging: One can install the wayland and xcb plugin > simultaneously. We need a mechanism to switch the QPA plugin globally > for all apps. One can use environment variables right now, but maybe > we should also pick up from qt.conf (if it doesn't already) ? I don't see the problem with an environment variable. I think the most important part is that we actually have a reasonable, auto- detected default. If the application is run under Wayland, it loads the Wayland plugin. Changing anything would only be necessary if you want to test (and, usually, have more than one system). -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027 Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] UDS feedback
On sábado, 12 de maio de 2012 22.01.09, Sergio Ahumada Navea wrote: > > 1. Qt SDK vs Ubuntu repo install - Currently, Qt SDK is a separate > > download from Nokia website. Ubuntu packages creator and Qt. This > > could cause confusion as to which to choose. I think the decision made > > here was that this is not entirely solvable since Qt SDK contains much > > more than creator and Qt (it has the sysroots and toolchains required > > for the devices). Is it possible for us to bundle sysroots and > > toolchains separately? That way, ubuntu repos can be the definitive > > place to download creator and qt. > > Are you saying that I'll have to download Qt 5 for my Fedora 17 from an > Ubuntu repository ? I think I didn't understand this point. No, that was only in the context of what the Ubuntu community officially recommends to its own users. Other distributions may choose to do the same, or point to the official SDK which we release. > > 2. Rename our qt5 tool binaries - the binary names of moc, uic, qmake > > conflict in qt3 and qt4. Now with qt5, we will have another conflict. > > Is it possible to rename all our tool binaries to be moc5, qmake5? Are > > Qt4 qmake and Qt5 qmake completely compatible (I think not). Ossi, > > comments? > > Why not to rename qmake (from Qt3 and Qt4) as qmake-qt3 and qmake-qt4 > respectively in the distribution ? They already have a qmake-qt4, which they accomplish by applying a patch. The question is whether we're willing to rename the tool ourselves. >From what I understand, their build will have a renamed tool anyway. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027 Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] The place of QML
On sábado, 12 de maio de 2012 14.28.49, d3fault wrote: > Again and again it is mentioned "if you want it done, code it > yourself". But my response to you is that we are the majority (of Qt > users (developers who use Qt)) and you have an obligation to code it No, you're not. Developers like you might be the numerical majority, but when it comes to number of products developed and shipped to customers, I'm pretty sure that no one will come close to "next billion". Not to mention that I know of a few proven cases of companies shipping "a few million" that are very happy with QML. > for us, you being the collectors of any/all revenue generated by said > project (and here's the kicker: you also collect moneys on any code > contributed by us to said project). Nokia letting Digia handle support > for them does not factor in. Nokia still owns Qt. I also resent "Nokia still owns Qt". No, it does not. Many people, including me, worked really hard to create the Qt Project. It's no more Nokia's than anyone else in that sense. The only thing that Nokia has is that it retains the right to continue commercialising under different terms. And they do that by selling to Digia. So even if you were right about the commercial licensor being the "owner" (and you're not), you'd still be wrong about collecting the money. Digia collects the money and reinvests in its own activities. A certain amount may flow back to Nokia for paying for the right to do that. Do you REALLY think that this amount that Digia pays back to Nokia is worth 200 full-time top-notch developers? I really want you to tell me with a straight face that you can do the math and say it does. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027 Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] The place of QML
On sábado, 12 de maio de 2012 21.57.17, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote: > On 05/12/2012 08:28 PM, d3fault wrote: > > whereas the point I'm trying to make is that the Qt Project generates > > *enough* money based purely on Commercial Sales (which mostly just > > boil down to support anyways -- the LGPL is good enough for *most* > > Commercial uses) to drive it's own development. > > Are you kidding here? Doesn't matter whether he intended to be kidding or was being intentionally wrong. The fact is that he's WRONG and way off the mark. The Qt sales revenue hasn't paid for Qt development for at least 3 years, especially since the developers in Brisbane joined the Qt development (as opposed to Qtopia before). It's just nowhere near enough. The Qt dev team inside Nokia grew from ~50 people in 2008 to about 200 when I left one year ago. In the mean time, Qtopia was halted and Qt itself was released as LGPL, which certainly diminished the commercial sales. And that's not to mention that Trolltech wasn't profitable before the acquisition anyway. Trolltech was still at the stage of "invest more money than current revenues to generate future revenues" of a company's lifetime. Trolltech ASA was a public company, so the records are public. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027 Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] The place of QML
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:28 PM, d3fault wrote: > And he also made note "you still will need you or someone to work on > it". Exactly. Qt Commercial Sales (post-fork) will fund the 'someone > working on it'. I gather from this that you're proposing the idea of a fork. Stop being an idiot. Let me try explain: as you should already know, some of the work on Qt is being funded by commercial licensees (via digia) to work on what those commercial licensees want them to work on - already - _as a part of the project you're proposing to abandon_. This has nothing to do with Nokia. Now, if they're already here, it clearly doesn't need a fork to enable that to happen, as it's happening already. If someone (you, digia, Paul McCartney for all I care) have work they want in Qt, then they're free to push that forward - nobody will stop it, unless there is a solid technical grounds for that. A fork doesn't really gain you anything tangible you don't already have, other than some 200-300 fewer people working on your fork, meaning you don't have any of their years of Qt expertise in reviewing your changes, plus the pains of having to run infrastructure (VCS hosting, website, mailing lists, autotest infrastructure to prevent regressions - across three major platforms at a minimum), make releases, merge changes back in, develop and market new branding, etc. > Disagree. Nokia focuses its resources on areas that benefit Nokia. > That's how a business works. You're correct that this is how business works: Nokia's business is selling mobile devices (and services) - Digia's is in selling consultancy. Digia has customers who pay them to work on features and bugs that their customers need, Nokia does not. > Lastly, a fork would hurt the Qt Project/Nokia/Digia the most. The > fork could still PULL all of Qt Project/Nokia/Digia's work to > itself... A fork would only hurt this project if the majority of the effort was behind the fork, and frankly, I don't think that's about to happen nowdays. ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] UDS feedback
Hi, > 1. Qt SDK vs Ubuntu repo install - Currently, Qt SDK is a separate > download from Nokia website. Ubuntu packages creator and Qt. This > could cause confusion as to which to choose. I think the decision made > here was that this is not entirely solvable since Qt SDK contains much > more than creator and Qt (it has the sysroots and toolchains required > for the devices). Is it possible for us to bundle sysroots and > toolchains separately? That way, ubuntu repos can be the definitive > place to download creator and qt. Are you saying that I'll have to download Qt 5 for my Fedora 17 from an Ubuntu repository ? I think I didn't understand this point. > 2. Rename our qt5 tool binaries - the binary names of moc, uic, qmake > conflict in qt3 and qt4. Now with qt5, we will have another conflict. > Is it possible to rename all our tool binaries to be moc5, qmake5? Are > Qt4 qmake and Qt5 qmake completely compatible (I think not). Ossi, > comments? Why not to rename qmake (from Qt3 and Qt4) as qmake-qt3 and qmake-qt4 respectively in the distribution ? > 4. gerrit does not have a patch download system. For the moment, you > can use gitorious like > http://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtbase/commit/f1ea4ed3d4b45b2eda0a695c61f743cecc0644da?format=patch git fetch https://codereview.qt-project.org/p/qt/qtbase refs/changes/45/26045/1 && git format-patch -1 --stdout FETCH_HEAD You can get this link from the Web UI Cheers, -- Sergio Ahumada Navea s...@sansano.inf.utfsm.cl ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] The place of QML
On 05/12/2012 08:28 PM, d3fault wrote: > whereas the point I'm trying to make is that the Qt Project generates > *enough* money based purely on Commercial Sales (which mostly just > boil down to support anyways -- the LGPL is good enough for *most* > Commercial uses) to drive it's own development. Are you kidding here? ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] UDS feedback
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Girish Ramakrishnan wrote: > 1. Qt SDK vs Ubuntu repo install - Currently, Qt SDK is a separate > here was that this is not entirely solvable since Qt SDK contains much > more than creator and Qt (it has the sysroots and toolchains required > for the devices). Is it possible for us to bundle sysroots and > toolchains separately? That way, ubuntu repos can be the definitive > place to download creator and qt. It'd propose to have an ubuntu package that downloads the latest stable release of the Qt SDK bundle and install it to a user path (e.g. I think the preferred way to work with Qt these days, as I learn from other project like NodeJS . django and others, is not through sys wide installations.) In any event that is what I always do and it works best for multiple versions of Qt and the binaries , and I have a bash script to switch envs. Perhaps we could create something like Python's virtualenv for Qt? > > 5. QPA plugins + packaging: One can install the wayland and xcb plugin > simultaneously. We need a mechanism to switch the QPA plugin globally > for all apps. One can use environment variables right now, but maybe > we should also pick up from qt.conf (if it doesn't already) ? You mean, part of the Qt SDK installation or plain Qt from source installation? -Sivan ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
[Development] UDS feedback
Hi Guys, Here's some comments that I collected from UDS last week. Quim, Donald, Thiago and Adam might have more to add. I have cc'ed Jonathan who was giving us a lot of the feedback, he should be able to point us to the right people for further collaboration. 1. Qt SDK vs Ubuntu repo install - Currently, Qt SDK is a separate download from Nokia website. Ubuntu packages creator and Qt. This could cause confusion as to which to choose. I think the decision made here was that this is not entirely solvable since Qt SDK contains much more than creator and Qt (it has the sysroots and toolchains required for the devices). Is it possible for us to bundle sysroots and toolchains separately? That way, ubuntu repos can be the definitive place to download creator and qt. 2. Rename our qt5 tool binaries - the binary names of moc, uic, qmake conflict in qt3 and qt4. Now with qt5, we will have another conflict. Is it possible to rename all our tool binaries to be moc5, qmake5? Are Qt4 qmake and Qt5 qmake completely compatible (I think not). Ossi, comments? 3. Jonathan and Ubuntu packaging team will join the release mailing list and work closely with us for the beta packaging. The list is releas...@qt-project.org and you can join it here: http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo. 4. gerrit does not have a patch download system. For the moment, you can use gitorious like http://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtbase/commit/f1ea4ed3d4b45b2eda0a695c61f743cecc0644da?format=patch 5. QPA plugins + packaging: One can install the wayland and xcb plugin simultaneously. We need a mechanism to switch the QPA plugin globally for all apps. One can use environment variables right now, but maybe we should also pick up from qt.conf (if it doesn't already) ? Girish ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] The place of QML
On 5/11/12, BRM wrote: > 1. We are not _Nokia's_ core customers. Never were. Qt is extremely small > compared to Nokia at large. Not Nokia's core customers... Qt's core customers. Nokia's core customers are Mobile end users... which is why they're pushing so hard for this Toy Programming Language targeting mobile. Nokia takes Qt profits (which are minimal compared to Nokia sales -- but this point is irrelevant) and combines them with gross Nokia revenue. Nokia then invests (perhaps more than Qt profits -- though, again, irrelevant) in Qt in an area mostly only of interest to Nokia. > For starters, there's already a foundation in place - > http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php. > That Foundation has the right to license Qt under a "BSD-style license or > under > other open source licenses" regardless of any other licensing. > Qt is protected in that manner for both Open Source _and_ commercial users. > > That said, KDE4 uses QML extensively so I'm not sure they (KDE) would > necessarily agree with you. > > So no new charity/organization is required; and no other fork will get that > kind of licensing ability either. The KDE Free Qt Foundation is more of a backup plan. Should Qt cease to be released/developed (that wording is so vague it's downright retarded) under LGPL/GPL for 1 year, the KDE people can release it under BSD (or other) license. The KDE people actively develop Qt regardless and are not concerned with the monetization of Qt... whereas the point I'm trying to make is that the Qt Project generates *enough* money based purely on Commercial Sales (which mostly just boil down to support anyways -- the LGPL is good enough for *most* Commercial uses) to drive it's own development. When thinking about 'what future development should be targeted by the revenue generated by support sales?', Nokia's concerns (Mobile Platform Toy Programming Language) should not factor in. Again and again it is mentioned "if you want it done, code it yourself". But my response to you is that we are the majority (of Qt _users_ (developers who use Qt)) and you have an obligation to code it for us, you being the collectors of any/all revenue generated by said project (and here's the kicker: you also collect moneys on any code contributed by us to said project). Nokia letting Digia handle support for them does not factor in. Nokia still owns Qt. inb4 idiots in denial saying C++ GUI API is not what the majority of Qt user's want (see various polls on the forum) On 5/11/12, Atlant Schmidt wrote: > Now ask yourself how many millions of Euros could be > spent at some future point litigating whether or not > Nokia has "discontinued" the development of Qt. They > could entirely stop work on QWidget but the QML work > would probably prevent the triggering of the escape > clause. > >Atlant Two things (even though we're apparently on the same side): 1) They already have stopped working on QWidgets. One could already argue that Nokia has already stopped development (I won't make that argument because there's still a whole lot to Qt 5 aside from QML). 2) Time/money spent litigating would be wasted (unless you _REALLY_ want that BSD license (*cough iOS*)). It should instead be spent on forking Qt (free: LGPL + commercia: LGPL + Support) -- which, as Quim pointed out, we don't need Nokia's permission to do: On 5/11/12, Quim Gil wrote: > The great thing about Qt Project is that you don't need to oust Nokia or > anybody or relicense anything to push a Qt module forward. You can Just > Do It (or convince someone to do it, with nice words or green notes). > You can do it inside the Qt Project game through bugs, patches, > approvers, maintenance. You can even fork the code and work on it > somewhere else, if you think that will help your goals. But remember, > you still will need you or someone to work on it. And he also made note "you still will need you or someone to work on it". Exactly. Qt Commercial Sales (post-fork) will fund the 'someone working on it'. The difference being the 'someone' will be told what to do by someone with Qt's real goals in mind... not Nokia's [goals]. Also, Quim: what is your response to the fact that all code contributed to the Qt Project (as it stands) gives Nokia exclusive rights to redistribute said contributed code under terms other than the LGPL? We make it, they sell it (and then use the proceeds towards some useless short sighted corporate goal)! > Nokia has been asked to develop QWidget further many times, and the > answer has been consistent every time: Nokia is happy with the DONE > status and prefers to focus its resources in other areas that it > considers benefit not only Nokia but the whole Qt Project in today's > World. Disagree. Nokia focuses its resources on areas that benefit Nokia. That's how a business works. They might make the [marketing] claim that it's for the whole Qt Project's interests... but multiple polls h
Re: [Development] How to build Qt5 out-of-source?
On sábado, 12 de maio de 2012 15.28.16, Loaden wrote: > Hi, all! > I want build Qt5 use out-of-source like this way, and final failed. What is this final that failed? Out-of-source buiding works for me, though not all the time. Sometimes there are issues that need fixing. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027 Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] How to build Qt5 out-of-source?
What's the error message? At least the instructions at http://qt-project.org/wiki/Building_Qt_5_from_Git works for me on Kubuntu. On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Loaden wrote: > Hi, all! > I want build Qt5 use out-of-source like this way, and final failed. > > #!/bin/bash >> >> unset QTDIR >> export PATH="$PWD/../Qt5/qtbase/bin:$PATH" >> >> ../Qt5/configure -prefix $PWD/qtbase -opensource -confirm-license -fast >> -nomake examples >> ../Qt5/build -j 1 >> >> read -n1 -p "Press any key to continue..." >> >> Any comments and tips are very welcome! > > -- > Please don't ask where I come from, It's a shame! > Best Regards > Yuchen > > > ___ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development > > -- Blessings, Xizhi Zhu (Steven) http://xzis.me/ ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
[Development] How to build Qt5 out-of-source?
Hi, all! I want build Qt5 use out-of-source like this way, and final failed. #!/bin/bash > > unset QTDIR > export PATH="$PWD/../Qt5/qtbase/bin:$PATH" > > ../Qt5/configure -prefix $PWD/qtbase -opensource -confirm-license -fast > -nomake examples > ../Qt5/build -j 1 > > read -n1 -p "Press any key to continue..." > > Any comments and tips are very welcome! -- Please don't ask where I come from, It's a shame! Best Regards Yuchen ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
