ooking at my code base now I would not go back, the automatic binding re
evaluation is such a connect() call saver.
-Original Message-
From: Interest On Behalf Of Roland Hughes
Sent: August 22, 2019 11:21 AM
To: interest@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt free software polic
On 8/23/19 1:59 AM, Kai Köhne wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Interest On Behalf Of Roland
Hughes
[...]
The way our "support" was explained to me by our boss was this (it might be
different for every negotiation):
"If we have trouble with installation of the development software,
confi
> -Original Message-
> From: Interest On Behalf Of Roland
> Hughes
> [...]
> The way our "support" was explained to me by our boss was this (it might be
> different for every negotiation):
>
> "If we have trouble with installation of the development software,
> configuration of the develo
On 8/22/19 5:00 AM, James Ross-Smith wrote:
This a quite a timely thread, as I, like several others in here, am trying
to decide on a Commercial or non-Commercial licensing approach with Qt.
I've submitted numerous contact/quote/trial requests on the TQtC website
over the last couple of weeks bu
This a quite a timely thread, as I, like several others in here, am trying
to decide on a Commercial or non-Commercial licensing approach with Qt.
I've submitted numerous contact/quote/trial requests on the TQtC website
over the last couple of weeks but never hear back, so it's very helpful to
stum
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 7:17 AM Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
> On 14/08/2019 16.22, John Weeks wrote:
> > We are a small company selling a very large and complex application
> which is now based on Qt open source. At the time we first considered
> porting to Qt (version 4.3?) the license was very expen
On 14/08/2019 16.22, John Weeks wrote:
> We are a small company selling a very large and complex application which is
> now based on Qt open source. At the time we first considered porting to Qt
> (version 4.3?) the license was very expensive for small company (six
> programmers) and the evaluat
On Monday, 19 August 2019 00:28:37 PDT Vadim Peretokin wrote:
> Which was actually a very, very bad surprise that was pretty poorly
> documented. Please don't do that again.
We should have made the change before 5.12 come out, since we were already
aware of OpenSSL's timelines at that point. It j
On 8/19/19 5:00 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
To start with, there is no version of OpenSSL which is secure. Whoever
is using Qt just because it makes using SSL easy(ier) shouldn't be using
Qt anyway because they are releasing an insecure app they incorrectly
feel is secure.
That's very disingenuo
Which was actually a very, very bad surprise that was pretty poorly
documented. Please don't do that again.
We saw the openssl change and didn't think anything big of it - well, it
turned out that a minor upgrade to an TLS release completely broke secure
web downloads, secure TLS connections, and
August 2019 at 12.18
To: Tuukka Turunen , qt qt
Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy
Le ven. 16 août 2019 à 08:41, Tuukka Turunen
mailto:tuukka.turu...@qt.io>> a écrit :
I do agree that we should clarify this, especially the GPLv2 and GPLv3 part is
not clearly explained at qt.i
On Sunday, 18 August 2019 17:16:17 PDT Roland Hughes wrote:
> >> To start with, there is no version of OpenSSL which is secure. Whoever
> >> is using Qt just because it makes using SSL easy(ier) shouldn't be using
> >> Qt anyway because they are releasing an insecure app they incorrectly
> >> feel
On 8/18/19 5:00 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
No, don't. That is not receiving security fixes.
That's exactly what is happening in many places and it should be done. A
number of shops have their own forks of 4.8, some have shared forks.
And that's great, that's their right under open source licen
On 15/8/19 6:28 am, Thiago Macieira wrote:
PS: Qt 5.12 will switch to OpenSSL 1.1 in the binary builds.
Indeed 5.12.4 already did.
Hamish
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
On Friday, 16 August 2019 14:49:38 PDT Roland Hughes wrote:
> > No, don't. That is not receiving security fixes.
>
> That's exactly what is happening in many places and it should be done. A
> number of shops have their own forks of 4.8, some have shared forks.
And that's great, that's their right
Le ven. 16 août 2019 à 08:41, Tuukka Turunen a
écrit :
>
>
> I do agree that we should clarify this, especially the GPLv2 and GPLv3
> part is not clearly explained at qt.io websites. The approach is to use
> the v3 of both LGPL and GPL for new things, but to keep GPLv2 option for
> Essentials and
+5
At the time I was working on the IP Ghoster project (don't remember
year) I inquired. They wanted $5K +- _and_ royalties. There was no
license which would allow a lone developer to deliver a project to a
client. You had to use the client's license and the client had to pay
royalties and ha
On 8/14/19 11:15 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 12:09:02 PDT Roland Hughes wrote:
If you do not need the latest bells and whistles, drop back to Qt 4.8
No, don't. That is not receiving security fixes.
That's exactly what is happening in many places and it should be d
15 August 2019 at 12.18
To: qt qt
Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy
Le jeu. 15 août 2019 à 09:18, Vadim Peretokin
mailto:vpereto...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
Still, it reads like the Instagram influencer argument: "Give me free stuff and
I'll get you exposure.",
On Thursday, 15 August 2019 02:14:52 PDT Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> https://macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/qtbase.employer.relative.png
> (BTW Thiago, if you read this, the SSL certificate is invalid and some
> charts are broken)
Crap, the timer job to update the certificate isn't working. T
Il 15/08/19 11:14, Benjamin TERRIER ha scritto:
Also I never asked for anything free here. I am asking if "GPLv3 only"
is and will be the standard licensing scheme for new modules
made by The Qt Company. I feel that it needs to be made clear, at least
so that if an LGPL user need something he kn
Le jeu. 15 août 2019 à 09:18, Vadim Peretokin a
écrit :
> Still, it reads like the Instagram influencer argument: "Give me free
> stuff and I'll get you exposure.", and we all know how silly that sounds
> like.
>
That is a bit insulting toward Qt contributors.
And comparing free software project
ER
> *Date: *Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 22.18
> *To: *Tuukka Turunen
> *Cc: *qt qt
> *Subject: *Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Le mer. 14 août 2019 à 20:36, Tuukka Turunen a
> écrit :
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
>
August 2019 at 22.18
To: Tuukka Turunen
Cc: qt qt
Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy
Le mer. 14 août 2019 à 20:36, Tuukka Turunen
mailto:tuukka.turu...@qt.io>> a écrit :
Hi,
Qt’s approach to open-source is publicly described, but perhaps a bit hidden,
check for e
On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 14:36:18 PDT Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> Le mer. 14 août 2019 à 22:05, Thiago Macieira a
> écrit :
> > On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 12:17:44 PDT Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> > > The new add-ons modules could be provided as GPLv3 + GPLv2 + LGPLv3.
> >
> > Just a nitpick: th
Le mer. 14 août 2019 à 22:05, Thiago Macieira a
écrit :
> On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 12:17:44 PDT Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> > The new add-ons modules could be provided as GPLv3 + GPLv2 + LGPLv3.
>
> Just a nitpick: there's no need to have GPL-3.0 and LGPL-3.0 at the same
> time.
> So the combin
Il 14/08/19 22:05, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
I don't know if there's anything that is GPL-3.0 (without 2.0). There may be.
Quick, incomplete list, from the back of my head:
* QtVirtualKeyboard
* The WebGL QPA plugin
* The WebAssembly QPA plugin
* QtCharts
are all GPL3 (not 2).
My 2 c,
--
John Weeks
Cc: Interest
Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy
i’m in a similar boat. i’m sure there are others who are NOT on this list who
are also in the same boat.
> On Aug 14, 2019, at 1:22 PM, John Weeks wrote:
>
> We are a small company selling a very large and comple
i’m in a similar boat. i’m sure there are others who are NOT on this list who
are also in the same boat.
> On Aug 14, 2019, at 1:22 PM, John Weeks wrote:
>
> We are a small company selling a very large and complex application which is
> now based on Qt open source. At the time we first conside
On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 13:18:12 PDT André Pönitz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:57:27PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 12:09:02 PDT Roland Hughes wrote:
> > > If you do not need the latest bells and whistles, drop back to Qt 4.8
> >
> > No, don't. That is
We are a small company selling a very large and complex application which is
now based on Qt open source. At the time we first considered porting to Qt
(version 4.3?) the license was very expensive for small company (six
programmers) and the evaluation period simply wasn't adequate to deciding i
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:57:27PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 12:09:02 PDT Roland Hughes wrote:
> > If you do not need the latest bells and whistles, drop back to Qt 4.8
>
> No, don't. That is not receiving security fixes.
To make this a valid line of reasoning y
On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 12:17:44 PDT Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> The new add-ons modules could be provided as GPLv3 + GPLv2 + LGPLv3.
Just a nitpick: there's no need to have GPL-3.0 and LGPL-3.0 at the same time.
So the combinations are GPL-2.0+LGPL-3.0 and GPL-2.0+GPL-3.0.
I don't know if th
On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 12:09:02 PDT Roland Hughes wrote:
> If you do not need the latest bells and whistles, drop back to Qt 4.8
No, don't. That is not receiving security fixes.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel System Software Products
___
Le mer. 14 août 2019 à 20:36, Tuukka Turunen a
écrit :
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Qt’s approach to open-source is publicly described, but perhaps a bit
> hidden, check for example:
>
>- Section 3 of https://www.qt.io/faq/
>- https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Project_Open_Governance
>- https://www.qt.io/li
Not so unusual given the license Roulette which was going on.
On 8/14/19 1:36 PM, interest-requ...@qt-project.org wrote:
Sorry but I'll ask the obvious question: you bet your entire business
without paying for a license?
Have I misunderstood you?
--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
If you do not need the latest bells and whistles, drop back to Qt 4.8
https://doc.qt.io/archives/qt-4.8/opensourceedition.html
That version is rather prominent in the medical device world, because of
the issues you bring up here.
On 8/14/19 1:36 PM, David M. Cotter wrote:
+1 on this
i am in
very actively developed
areas of Qt.
Yours,
Tuukka
From: Interest on behalf of Benjamin TERRIER
Date: Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 19.21
To: qt qt
Subject: [Interest] Qt free software policy
Hi everyone,
Since we are talking about the future of Qt these days, I would like
to
14.08.2019, 21:04, "David M. Cotter" :
>i’m ALLOWED to use the free version, right? or did i misunderstand how LGPL
>works?
You are allowed to use it if you comply with LGPL terms.
In case new modules are licensed as GPL-only and you don't want/can't comply
with GPL,
you won't be allowed to u
it’s a labor of love, i make about $2000 per month on it, so about $24k per
year, and that just about covers my expenses and let’s me eat out sometimes. I
occasionally have 2 others help me (3 developers). if i had to pay, it would
cost $16k per year? that makes the business pointless. i’m ALL
On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 09:18:05 PDT Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> So I would like that someone could officially confirm if all new modules
> will be
> released under GPLv3 only. Or if it is something that is decided on a per
> module
> basis.
It's decided on a per-module basis, based on the auth
Sorry but I'll ask the obvious question: you bet your entire business
without paying for a license?
Have I misunderstood you?
On Wed, 14 Aug. 2019, 7:01 pm David M. Cotter, wrote:
> +1 on this
>
> i am in the process of porting my legacy project to Qt and am afraid that
> i’ve made the wrong ch
+1 on this
i am in the process of porting my legacy project to Qt and am afraid that i’ve
made the wrong choice. i’m just one guy and i bet my whole business on the
availability of what i need from Qt under LGPL
i’m already using a third party HTTP server so i’m not affected by this but
it’s
Hi everyone,
Since we are talking about the future of Qt these days, I would like
to know The Qt Company free software policy with Qt.
Today, most of Qt modules are released under 3 free software licenses:
LGPLv3,
GPLv2 and GPLv3. Some modules are released only under GPLv3.
If my memory is good,
44 matches
Mail list logo
