In 2007 Nokia people were interested in taking this, they were pushing mobile technology and having an office suite in Qt with the brand awareness of OpenOffice.Org was a competitive advantage for their platform. I always offer an open venue to get their sentiment relayed to some core sun developers, however never really got a real push on the ML. I would have loved to really see the deep technical details between VCL and Qt's widgets.
On Jan 14, 2015 11:28 AM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > Maintaining the independently-developed VCL GUI framework is an > important concern. (Then there's UNO as a cross-platform COM > derivative.) > > The problem with much of the complexity of AOO, it seems to me, > is that it is difficult to find improvements that can be > achieved with progressions of small changes that have every- > think still working each step of the way. Combined with the > level of expertise required to know what changes are safe > and consistent with the architecture of AOO, there is a big > challenge for identifying any major moves. > > It would be great to know what insights there are for > cultivating and sustaining the necessary expertise and > maybe simplifying the learning curve and entrance > requirements. Maybe just keep doing more of what is > already being done in this area? > > > -- replying below to -- > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 15:46 > To: OOo Apache > Subject: [DISCUSS] Qt as a replacement for VCL > > Something I started thinking about and ta da...it's been proposed before -- > > http://markmail.org/message/gjvwudqnzejlzynz > > In my mind, we could use some assistance in the maintenance of the > toolkit for our UI instead of continuing to do it ourselves. This said, > I know next to nothing about QT and from what I've seen, the licensing > is pretty complicated and might not work for the ASF -- > > http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/licensing.html#licenses-used-in-qt > > <orcmid> > I finally noticed and followed the markmail link above. Of course, > in January 2009, all of OpenOffice.org was under LGPL and the license > was not a concern for the open-source side of things. The private > commercial licensing of OO.o by Sun (e.g., to IBM) would have been a > concern. > The dependency on what continued to be a pretty closely-held project > might have been a concern even then. > If The Document Foundation had decided this was a good idea, the > prospect of an ecumenical accommodation with LibreOffice would be even > stranger today than it already is [;<). > </orcmid> > > Main web site -- http://qt-project.org/ > > Thoughts? > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > MzK > > "There's a bit of magic in everything, > and some loss to even things out." > -- Lou Reed > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
