On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:04 PM Jens <[email protected]> wrote: > > I can’t make any calls since the work isn’t on my shoulders but if the Qt > company are ready to pull this stunt AND then lie about it in the vaguest > most awkward way of saying “KDE and Qt Free are lying” they will do this > again and forking, even though Qt Company cowered out now, might be better in > the long run. >
I think forking is premature. The existing FOSS releases of Qt are not going away just yet. Negotiations are still ongoing and have not yet broken down irretrievably. While there's plenty of stakeholders we could enumerate (and not just companies like e.g. Bosch, think government as well), if we really want use KDE as the "open version of Qt" shop then we should probably first look at the number of fixes to upstream actually made through KDE mirrors directly. I.e. count how many people use KDE repos to develop Qt and then push for upstreaming their work (and encourage people and other partners to do so as well). Because ultimately the real work is not a mailing list, hosting or even CI: it is about keeping the project moving forward with new graphical stacks/technologies, OSes, form-factors, C++ standards and bindings, and for that reason alone it is better to know that you can actually pull it off before creating another Copperspice. That is not trivial, and even *many* fixes don't compare to a full time job of keeping the platform relevant and up to date. Regards, -Johan
