On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:29:53 +0530, Rajeev J Sebastian wrote:
> How about when people (who do not code, and have not coded in their
> entire life) also demand that your work be made "free" (as in "free
> speech") so that they can profit enormously from it ? That also
> strikes me as being cruel.
>
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Sundance wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 01:05:34PM +0100, Knapp wrote:
>
>> Sometimes I think it would be good to have a commercial license that
>> says please pay us after 2 years if you have the cash, perhaps with
>> interest to make up for the risk we took on
On 2/12/2009 12:44 PM, Sundance wrote:
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
You're basically restating your previous point, without debating mine.
The language choice affects companies much more than £350 /
programmer.
Hi Giovanni, hi Phil, hi everybody,
Giovanni, I'm... a bit uncomfortable writing this bec
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> You're basically restating your previous point, without debating mine.
> The language choice affects companies much more than £350 /
> programmer.
Hi Giovanni, hi Phil, hi everybody,
Giovanni, I'm... a bit uncomfortable writing this because I generally
agree with you, and
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:21:29 +0200, "Ville M. Vainio"
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Phil Thompson
> wrote:
>
>> The selection of a language happens much earlier than the selection of a
>> GUI toolkit. A GUI toolkit is (or at least should be) a relatively minor
>
> Sometimes, the gui
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Phil Thompson
wrote:
> The selection of a language happens much earlier than the selection of a
> GUI toolkit. A GUI toolkit is (or at least should be) a relatively minor
Sometimes, the gui toolkit is selected for you. This may not be true
for pc software, but my
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:09:17 +0200, "Ville M. Vainio"
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
>
>> I doubt that any company on earth would save £350 and change
programming
>> language. This kind of decision is made by amateur programmers that just
>> want to play around wi
On 2/11/2009 4:09 PM, Ville M. Vainio wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
I doubt that any company on earth would save £350 and change programming
language. This kind of decision is made by amateur programmers that just
want to play around with Qt, but those can alread
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> I doubt that any company on earth would save £350 and change programming
> language. This kind of decision is made by amateur programmers that just
> want to play around with Qt, but those can already use the GPL version.
Not necessarily ch
On 2/11/2009 7:57 AM, Ville M. Vainio wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Knapp wrote:
Comes down to if pyQT is LGPL then I write in my fav lang python, if
not then I go back and relearn C++ and face the brackets that I hoped
never to face again. :-)
As said many times before, *nothing
On 2/11/2009 4:32 AM, Brian Kelley wrote:
What are the alternative options so PyQt can be LGPLd? I can see three:
1. PyQt is LGPL’d but support costs money. (I would still pay for
support, not that I actually have needed it, mind you, Phil is
usually on top of the ball as far a
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Jim Bublitz wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 February 2009 14:41:02 pm Knapp wrote:
>> > Oh, btw what implications it has for your application/development
>> > to use Qt or PyQt licensed under GPL or LGPL or commercial is
>> > something you should discuss with a lawyer.
>> >
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Knapp wrote:
> Comes down to if pyQT is LGPL then I write in my fav lang python, if
> not then I go back and relearn C++ and face the brackets that I hoped
> never to face again. :-)
As said many times before, *nothing has been announced on this yet*.
Even if P
On Tuesday 10 February 2009 19:44:12 pm Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> And I empahisze with Jim and having to deal with whinners. They get
> into every open source project and drain the lead developers of their
> drive -- it's pretty unfortunate. I hope Jim does what is best for
> him, as much as I woul
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Brian Kelley wrote:
I too was going to keep quiet based on the previously thread we had
seemingly spontaneously agreed to hush up and wait. But since someone
has already broken that little agreement, and this is an archived list
I would like to take the time to ag
On 2/10/09 6:13 PM, "Jim Bublitz" wrote:
I've never minded people using my software for free - even commercially.
I just hate it when they whine about software being free, but not on
terms where they can profit enormously from other people's work. It's
the whining, not the profiting, that I objec
On Tuesday 10 February 2009 14:41:02 pm Knapp wrote:
> > Oh, btw what implications it has for your application/development
> > to use Qt or PyQt licensed under GPL or LGPL or commercial is
> > something you should discuss with a lawyer.
> >
> > Andreas
>
> Yes, all is clear now, thanks.
>
> This bi
On Tue Feb 10 21:49:57 GMT 2009, Stef Mientki wrote:
> >> On 10.02.09 19:56:44, Knapp wrote:
> >
> > That is the best I can tell by all that but really someone could just
> > be straight and answer my question.
Are you in a hurry or something? Qt won't be LGPL until the final 4.5 release
so there
On 10.02.09 22:49:57, Stef Mientki wrote:
> Knapp wrote:
>> Comes down to if pyQT is LGPL then I write in my fav lang python, if
>> not then I go back and relearn C++ and face the brackets that I hoped
>> never to face again. :-)
>>
> No no, just join the wxPython group !
Hmm, personally if I h
> Oh, btw what implications it has for your application/development to use
> Qt or PyQt licensed under GPL or LGPL or commercial is something you
> should discuss with a lawyer.
>
> Andreas
Yes, all is clear now, thanks.
This bit about the lawyer always strikes me as funny. I am looking at
releas
Knapp wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 10.02.09 19:56:44, Knapp wrote:
I see that the newer QT4.5 has the LGPL license. Does this mean that
pyQT will also have this license? Does using this license mean that
you can use the lib and write a closed source
On 10.02.09 22:10:05, Knapp wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > On 10.02.09 19:56:44, Knapp wrote:
> >> I see that the newer QT4.5 has the LGPL license. Does this mean that
> >> pyQT will also have this license? Does using this license mean that
> >> you can use th
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Knapp wrote:
> pyQT is not?? and never will be but maybe someone named Phil is still
> thinking about it?
>
> Anyway answer like that are about as helpful and friendly as RTFM.
mputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
>
Phil is the person who made PyQt ... so when askin
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 10.02.09 19:56:44, Knapp wrote:
>> I see that the newer QT4.5 has the LGPL license. Does this mean that
>> pyQT will also have this license? Does using this license mean that
>> you can use the lib and write a closed source app without h
On 10.02.09 19:56:44, Knapp wrote:
> I see that the newer QT4.5 has the LGPL license. Does this mean that
> pyQT will also have this license? Does using this license mean that
> you can use the lib and write a closed source app without having to
> pay for a license?
Please read the archive, this h
I see that the newer QT4.5 has the LGPL license. Does this mean that
pyQT will also have this license? Does using this license mean that
you can use the lib and write a closed source app without having to
pay for a license?
--
Douglas E Knapp
Why do we live?
_
26 matches
Mail list logo
