Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy
On Thursday, 15 August 2019 02:14:52 PDT Benjamin TERRIER wrote: > https://macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/qtbase.employer.relative.png > (BTW Thiago, if you read this, the SSL certificate is invalid and some > charts are broken) Crap, the timer job to update the certificate isn't working. The Perl Net::DNS API changed... anyway, the cert expired yesterday, so it was down for only a day. Fixed. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel System Software Products ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
[Interest] Add row to model *with data*?
So... I have a (subclass of) QAbstractItemModel. This class internally represents data using some other container, which has specific requirements on both the item, and on the order of items. Thus, I can't just add rows anywhere and with no data, to be filled in later. My users are intended to work with *just* the QAbstractItemModel API. (I eventually expect to have multiple model implementations.) Is there any way, with the existing QAbstractItemModel API, to specify the data that the row should contain in the same call that adds the row? Even better, is there any way to ask the model to add a row, with data, but *not* specify where the row is to be added? (The model would then return the new row index, or -1 if it could not complete the operation as requested.) If not, is this something that would make sense to add? -- Matthew ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy
Il 15/08/19 11:14, Benjamin TERRIER ha scritto: Also I never asked for anything free here. I am asking if "GPLv3 only" is and will be the standard licensing scheme for new modules made by The Qt Company. I feel that it needs to be made clear, at least so that if an LGPL user need something he knows that he should not expect to have it in a future version of Qt, but should rather contribute it himself ensuring that it will be available under LGPL. I'd say that the decision is always going to be on a module-by-module basis. If you want to read something between the lines wrt TQC's commercial interests, feel free to do so, but that's not the Qt Project's policy. My 2 c, -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts smime.p7s Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy
Le jeu. 15 août 2019 à 09:18, Vadim Peretokin a écrit : > Still, it reads like the Instagram influencer argument: "Give me free > stuff and I'll get you exposure.", and we all know how silly that sounds > like. > That is a bit insulting toward Qt contributors. And comparing free software projects (including Qt) with Instagram's "Give me free stuff and I'll get you exposure" is inappropriate. If you look at the stats of Qt Base a large percentage of the commits (~40% I'd say) are made by people external to The Qt Company. You can have a look on Thiago's blog: https://macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/qtbase.employer.relative.png (BTW Thiago, if you read this, the SSL certificate is invalid and some charts are broken) My point is that The Qt Company is not providing free stuff merely for exposure. It also gets many other things including developers committing code for free, code that The Qt Company is then able to sell under its commercial license. Also I never asked for anything free here. I am asking if "GPLv3 only" is and will be the standard licensing scheme for new modules made by The Qt Company. I feel that it needs to be made clear, at least so that if an LGPL user need something he knows that he should not expect to have it in a future version of Qt, but should rather contribute it himself ensuring that it will be available under LGPL. I have also expressed my concerns that the lack of support for GPLv2 can be an issue for some projects. I would also like that some modules, *if they are not good sale arguments*, could be licensed under LGPL as if they do not help The Qt Company sales, they could at least contribute to growing the community. > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 6:17 AM Tuukka Turunen > wrote: > >> >> >> “This is wrong to say that the only alternative to Commercial + GPLv3 is >> Commercial only.” >> >> >> >> I did not say the _*only*_ alternative. Some new things are LGPL exactly >> to grow the user base. Qt for Python being one of such. >> >> >> > Well you said "Alternative for using GPLv3 and commercial would be to only offer these add-ons separately under a commercial license". You did not say _*only alternative*_ explicitly, but it does sound, at least to me, like it is implicitly here. +1 for Qt for Python. BR Benjamin ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy
Still, it reads like the Instagram influencer argument: "Give me free stuff and I'll get you exposure.", and we all know how silly that sounds like. On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 6:17 AM Tuukka Turunen wrote: > > > “This is wrong to say that the only alternative to Commercial + GPLv3 is > Commercial only.” > > > > I did not say the _*only*_ alternative. Some new things are LGPL exactly > to grow the user base. Qt for Python being one of such. > > > > Yours, > > > > Tuukka > > > > *From: *Benjamin TERRIER > *Date: *Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 22.18 > *To: *Tuukka Turunen > *Cc: *qt qt > *Subject: *Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy > > > > > > > > Le mer. 14 août 2019 à 20:36, Tuukka Turunen a > écrit : > > > > Hi, > > > > Qt’s approach to open-source is publicly described, but perhaps a bit > hidden, check for example: > > · Section 3 of https://www.qt.io/faq/ > > · https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Project_Open_Governance > > · https://www.qt.io/licensing/ > > > > These pages are just presenting the current licensing options. > > They do not cover how The Qt Company view the licensing of future Qt > modules. > > > > We have been releasing new add-on modules under GPLv3 and commercial > licenses with intention of growing the adoption of commercial license for > those making closed-source applications with Qt. Alternative for using > GPLv3 and commercial would be to only offer these add-ons separately under > a commercial license, which would mean not even those who are ok with GPLv3 > license could use these add-ons. Some of such components do exist, but most > of our code is available under an open-source license as well. > > > > This is wrong to say that the only alternative to Commercial + GPLv3 is > Commercial only. > > The new add-ons modules could be provided as GPLv3 + GPLv2 + LGPLv3. > > I understand the will to grow "the adoption of commercial license", but I > believe that some modules which have a lot of alternatives available could > be licensed also under GPLv2 and/or LPGLv3 without going against "the > adoption of commercial license". > > Also having more module on LGPL can grow the Qt community leading to > indirect sales of the commercial license. > > > > For instance when I work on GPLv3 projects I can use all Qt add-ons, but > when I work on GPLv2 or LGPLv3 project I cannot use the most recent Qt > modules. > > Which means that I have to find an alternative anyway. In the end I do not > use these Qt add-ons, even for the GPLv3 projects as I have an alternative > ready. > > > > At the same time we have developed a lot of new functionality, done a lot > of improvements, and fixed a lot of bugs in functionality available also > with LGPL license. This is a big investment, which directly benefits all Qt > users whether they distribute their applications under LGPL, GPL or > commercial license. Just look at the amount of new and changed code and you > can see that the LGPLv3 parts are clearly not some legacy functionality, > but very actively developed areas of Qt. > > > > I am not denying that. > > It is just that all the novelties are GPLv3 only and I think it should be > made clear to the community that new LGPL modules are not to be expected. > > > > BR > > > > Benjamin > ___ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest > ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
