Hi Peter sorry for top posting, but I try to answer both of your mails in one.
The licensing problem is a bit more complicated. Apache source is not allowed to depend on third party libraries that uses e.g. LGPL if you want to read details you can find it here: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html disc In general there are a number of loopholes: - if the library is part of the OS we don´t care (think of Microsoft SDK/MFC, OS-X core libraries and glibc), so webkit on OS-X is not a problem - if the component is optional we don´t care in case of LGPL I am not a lawyer so please don´t ask me about the legal difference, in us asking for a library to be installed, or it being preinstalled. We can surely use the "optional", because the editor is only one of many consumers. To avoid discussions with the IPMC, I would prefer to rename it "editor" that is more neutral. And yes, we (the project) release only source (including optional source), and e.g. I do derived work and publish binaries on my homepage. All in all you have convinced me (again), and I will update the cmake files so editor becomes optional and in case it is activated expected Qt to be installed. I just wanted to raise the question again, since I now start putting hours into that part, since win64 works nicely. rgds jan i. . On 27 July 2015 at 02:41, Peter Kelly <pmke...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 26 Jul 2015, at 5:16 pm, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > I am currently updating the cmake files to cover e.g. the editor and see > > some problems. > > > > I know we decided to use Qt, but I would like to take the discussion > again. > > > > If we use Qt the editor will never be a released product, it will remain > an > > optional product, and > > I think we will want to position the editor as a main feature of > corinthia. > > > > There is an alternative to Qt, which is a little more work but not much. > If > > we look at how peter > > currently uses Qtwebkit it is pretty simple and static. > > I should add that in terms of the amount of code, there will ultimately be > significantly more on the native side (using Qt or whatever other library) > than the JS code that runs inside the web view. The editor code is 13,600 > lines of JavaScript. UX Write (excluding DocFormats and the JS Editor code) > is 45,000. > > So we have two options: > > 1. Use Qt and write ~45,000 lines of code which works across platforms > 2. Use native UI toolkits and write ~135,000 lines of code, to cover all > three platform (Win/Linux/Mac) > > In practice, it wouldn’t be quite that bad, as some of that is non-UI code > which could be written in plan C, albeit giving up some of the benefits of > Qt e.g. string handling and common data structures. But it would be at > least double the effort in both development and testing (unless we can find > another suitable cross-platform UI toolkit). > > — > Dr Peter M. Kelly > pmke...@apache.org > > PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key> > (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966) > >
