Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:36:06 +1000 Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled: > >>> i guess i just don't lik the idea of a thin vertical stack where at each >>> layer 1 choice has been made for me and i'm stuck with it, like it or not, >>> or i move to a whole different stack. eg - must use qt, or must use gtk, or >>> must use efl. allow the choice to be made at the latest stage - not the >>> earliest. i prefer the idea of an ecosystem where all these toolkits and >>> mechanisms get along and co-habitate. jungle vs ivory tower guess... i'm a >>> jungle kinda guy! :) anyone want a banana? :) >> I guess you have to define your target audience. The small niche linux hacker >> group or the larger general phone community that requires a consistent look >> and feel. Perhaps a good read of the Human Interface Design Principles at >> apple might do some good. > > in that case, maybe we should all have given up - trolltech included, and > simply have used windows and visual studio - so we have a consistent os, > programming environment, ui toolkit etc. why should there be any variety or > choice - i mean... qt is a waste of time competing because it's different to > everything else. > > variety is a fact of life. UNLIKE other platforms we get the chance to support > all of the variety - at once easily. other platforms force you into their idea > of toolkit, like it or no. at least i dont have to reboot just to run another > app using another toolkit... > >>> sure, but any non-qt app.. will be a behemoth to port. you either: >> just as any non-<toolkit-of-the-day> >> Like porting a qtopia app to gpe. or a windows app to linux. are you going to >> include win32 or S60 port because they have _way_ more applications written >> for them. > > and so from that point of view - qtopia would be a loser as it has many fewer > apps written for it than general X11. :)
No, because it is easy to make a Qt app into a Qtopia app. two or three line change in the best case (QApplication -> QtopiaApplication and for the menu) > >>> 1. do a whole port of the app to qt/qtopia (work work work!) >>> (not to mention now that this basically means you pay nokia a license fee, >>> or your app must be GPL, can't be mit-x11, bsd, APL, MPL etc.). >> You want to charge people money for your commercial app? so why is it bad for >> Trolltech ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Nokia to do the same? >> GPL ensures that the code and software remains free. Besides, the Neo is >> touted as a "Free your phone" phone. Why would you want to install non free >> apps on it? I could just as easily use any Nokia phone in existence. > > i never mentioned commercial apps nor money. Yes you did. "pay for a license' implies both money and you needing a commercial license, which implies you intend on producing closed source applications. > your idea of open is not mine - or > the next person along's. i prefer the open of mit-x11/bsd, not GPL. all are > free, open and cost $0, but GPL places more restrictions. > >> Actually you are free to license the code you write in any way you want. It >> just has to be compatible with the license you link it to. No one is stopping >> you from writing your code in multiple licenses anyway. > > if i want to write a library and license it with a less restrictive, yet still > open license, it BECOMES GPL - for all purposes GPL will virally impose > itself. > this is not the case if i use gtk, sdl, efl etc., but is the case with qt. it > then would be my choice, as a developer of open, and free software, to choose > a > toolkit that doesn't limit my own freedom to license as i please. remember i > never talked about charging for software or it being closed. :) So, instead you choose to limit the freedom of your users, which include other developers. btw, kde libs are licensed LGPL. -- Lorn 'ljp' Potter Software Engineer, Systems Group, Trolltech, a Nokia company _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community