anatoly techtonik (2011-11-11 19:54): > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Matti Airas <matti.p.ai...@nokia.com> wrote: > > > > Furthermore, in addition to the wiki that is > > already hosted by Qt, PySide could have the project mailing lists and the > > bug tracker hosted by Qt. > > My subjective judgement, but Qt hosting service suxx, and here is why: > > 1. Bugtracker > Jira suxx. It doesn't support OpenID and OAuth, has an ugly theme and > is too overloaded for PySide (or for me, whatever). > > 2. Design > PySide pages has an attractive design and leave a good consistent > feeling of the project in general. I can't say the same for Qt pages > and its green-ogre-in-the-cloud theme. It is consistent, but no good. > > 3. Mailing list > I am quite happy to have a Google Group mirror, and I am not sure it > will be possible to sync it with a new list anymore. Considering that > Qt uses the same mailman, there is no gain. > > 4. Repository > Gitorious suxx. Just because there is GitHub with pull requests, pages > and dozen of other nifty features. > > So, my opinion that even if PySide will be more exposed to Qt guys, it > will likely be lost for Python community. It would probably be harder > for me to start with PySide if it was hosted as one of numerous > projects on a strange 3rd party site with no indication of life > support. To me, exposing it to GitHub and Python community is more > practical and usable. > > > When setting up the PySide project, we didn't anticipate moving back under > > the Qt umbrella. Hence, the PySide project has not traditionally required > > any contributor agreement. However, all Qt software, including the add-ons, > > are licensed under the same terms, and therefore, if PySide is to become a > > Qt Add-on, the contributors need to execute the Qt Contribution Agreement. > > I guess it makes this part - "We welcome any contribution without > requiring a transfer of copyright." - no longer valid. A pity. An evil > world is where you need to sign a paper to do something good. > > > The agreement primarily facilitates Nokia's compliance with its commitments > > under the agreement with the KDE Free Qt Foundation, and enables commercial > > Qt users to participate in the Qt Project. Most of the Qt code is currently > > licensed under the LGPL v2.1, so there would not be drastic changes for the > > PySide open source licensing. > > > > [2]http://qt-project.org/legal.html > > I don't understand what stops commercial Qt users from using PySide? > IIUC after the agreement is signed, you give up all your authorship > rights and Nokia or Microsoft or Oracle can do whatever they want with > the license. I doubt they will change the license to MIT of public > domain. I doubt they won't want constrain open source users more with > patents and trademarks. So, it doesn't look very positive at all from > this point of view. > > > I'd be very interested in hearing your opinions and comments regarding this > > move! > > Well, if you didn't ask - I wouldn't answer. I've got a feeling that > PySide is going to die, because Nokia can not afford to > support/sponsor it anymore. So far it was a very pleasant experience, > and if Qt umbrella is required for PySide project to continue - I > guess I don't have any other choice than to support that move. > > Anyway, PySide is awesome! =) > -- > anatoly t.
Yes, PySide is awesome. A very nice post, anatoly. I would soundly and wholeheartedly agree with all the points if I were more active here. -- -- Rogutės Sparnuotos _______________________________________________ PySide mailing list PySide@lists.pyside.org http://lists.pyside.org/listinfo/pyside
