Re: [Interest] Mixing Commercial and Open Source license for, different, projects
On 18/03/2021 08.10, Roland Hughes wrote: https://www.logikalsolutions.com/wordpress/information-technology/qlist/ You can also take a big hit if there happens to be 100+ things referring to this particular value instance when it needs to change. Think a working/scratch object you load a “default” value into from some external source then use to initialize a hundred element list. Not an integer, but a substantial object like a page of text or a QPixmap image. Later on in the code your working QPixmap needs to load a different image. That image pays the price. A hundred copies now have to be made before the first image change can happen. The second image change pays no such price so it is very fast. Uh... that's not true. When you need to change a shared object, the one *being changed* gets copied. The other 99 continue to point to the old object, the new one points to a new object that you just created. *One* copy, not one hundred... which you needed to pay for anyway; CoW just delays payment until you definitely need the copy instead of when you logically make the copy. -- Matthew ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Mixing Commercial and Open Source license for, , different, projects
On 3/19/21 6:00 AM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: Il 18/03/21 12:41, Christian Gagneraud ha scritto: My main grief is that Qt doesn't seem to care about C++. What was their last contribution to the standard? Apart from hiring the ex-chair of the WG21 Evolution Working Group? (Can we stop with the FUD please?) Can we stop the willy-nilly deletion of existing convenience methods currently used in products in the field? -- Roland Hughes, President Logikal Solutions (630)-205-1593 http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com http://www.infiniteexposure.net http://www.johnsmith-book.com http://www.logikalblog.com http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Mixing Commercial and Open Source license for, different, projects
On 18/3/21 10:41 pm, Christian Gagneraud wrote: My main grief is that Qt doesn't seem to care about C++. What was their last contribution to the standard? I find that to be a bit of a weird comment. Qt needs to work with the compilers/standard libraries that we the users have now. Why would you expect them to be pushing the standards? Hamish ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Mixing Commercial and Open Source license for, different, projects
Il 18/03/21 12:41, Christian Gagneraud ha scritto: My main grief is that Qt doesn't seem to care about C++. What was their last contribution to the standard? Apart from hiring the ex-chair of the WG21 Evolution Working Group? (Can we stop with the FUD please?) 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] Mixing Commercial and Open Source license for, different, projects
On 3/18/21 6:55 AM, Christian Gagneraud wrote: On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 00:41, Christian Gagneraud wrote: On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 03:32, Roland Hughes wrote: On 3/17/21 6:00 AM, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote: Out of curiosity: what alternatives are people settling on? Forgot to mention. Comcast dumped Qt in favor of Webkit some time late last year. You probably were on the SPAM and phone call list. We all know just how technical the people pimps put on the phone are, but here is what they told me. FUD + death-of-perpetual-license = abandon-Qt FUD from Qt + FUD from Roland = people getting tired I'm tired, and looking every single day how to get rid of Qt. I'm not happy about the situation, but it forces me to rethink. My main grief is that Qt doesn't seem to care about C++. What was their last contribution to the standard? One day, C++ will have introspection, and it will come from boost, not Qt... So sad! Tip to whoever: Qt = Atlassian. Expensive stuff for big companies that think you can buy success. The flaw in that analogy is the big companies are banning Qt's use. The only medical device projects I'm hearing about still using Qt are things that started over a year ago or things being created by very tiny firms. The deep pockets went elsewhere. Konrad and I are just trying to identify where. Qt licensing changes locked Qt out of many lucrative markets. I concur with your comment on C++. It does feel Qt has abandoned C++. The recent willy-nilly deletion of convenience functions causing thousands of hours of expensive pain for existing products/projects only adds credence to that feeling. There seems to be a deep religious divide between C++ and Qt and it is over the CoW (Copy on Write) Qt relies on. (Which also means you can't really have exceptions.) On low powered embedded systems with horrible dynamic memory allocation CoW can really save your bacon. I didn't think it made much difference on grid powered desktops, until I stumbled into a situation where it did. https://www.logikalsolutions.com/wordpress/information-technology/qlist/ Almost 16 minutes to build a QList that Qt built in about half a second. -- Roland Hughes, President Logikal Solutions (630)-205-1593 http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com http://www.infiniteexposure.net http://www.johnsmith-book.com http://www.logikalblog.com http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Mixing Commercial and Open Source license for, different, projects
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 00:41, Christian Gagneraud wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 03:32, Roland Hughes > wrote: > > > On 3/17/21 6:00 AM, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote: > > >> Out of curiosity: what alternatives are people settling on? > > > > > Forgot to mention. Comcast dumped Qt in favor of Webkit some time late > > last year. You probably were on the SPAM and phone call list. We all > > know just how technical the people pimps put on the phone are, but here > > is what they told me. > > > > FUD + death-of-perpetual-license = abandon-Qt > > FUD from Qt + FUD from Roland = people getting tired > > I'm tired, and looking every single day how to get rid of Qt. > I'm not happy about the situation, but it forces me to rethink. > > My main grief is that Qt doesn't seem to care about C++. > What was their last contribution to the standard? > > One day, C++ will have introspection, and it will come from boost, not Qt... > So sad! Tip to whoever: Qt = Atlassian. Expensive stuff for big companies that think you can buy success. Chris ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Mixing Commercial and Open Source license for, different, projects
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 03:32, Roland Hughes wrote: > > On 3/17/21 6:00 AM, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote: > >> Out of curiosity: what alternatives are people settling on? > > > Forgot to mention. Comcast dumped Qt in favor of Webkit some time late > last year. You probably were on the SPAM and phone call list. We all > know just how technical the people pimps put on the phone are, but here > is what they told me. > > FUD + death-of-perpetual-license = abandon-Qt FUD from Qt + FUD from Roland = people getting tired I'm tired, and looking every single day how to get rid of Qt. I'm not happy about the situation, but it forces me to rethink. My main grief is that Qt doesn't seem to care about C++. What was their last contribution to the standard? One day, C++ will have introspection, and it will come from boost, not Qt... So sad! Chris ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Mixing Commercial and Open Source license for, different, projects
On 3/17/21 6:00 AM, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote: Out of curiosity: what alternatives are people settling on? Forgot to mention. Comcast dumped Qt in favor of Webkit some time late last year. You probably were on the SPAM and phone call list. We all know just how technical the people pimps put on the phone are, but here is what they told me. FUD + death-of-perpetual-license = abandon-Qt Some division or company that Comcast owns a significant part of has a commercial Webkit product that is far afield from the OpenSource. Been selling it to companies for some time now. When all of this licensing started over a year ago upper management made the decision to not just abandon all Qt but to purge it. All of their VoT (Video Over Top) now uses Webkit. They were looking basically to thieve people who had worked at companies that had bought whatever this commercial product is. Someone who had only worked with OpenSource Webkit wasn't strong enough unless they had contributed __lots__ of code to Webkit itself. They were going to get them. I was getting 5-6 phone calls per day for several weeks on this. Everyone had the same story. Back then they were up to $85/hr 100% remote. None of this "remote until" scam" far too many companies are shopping around. Keep in mind, that's what people who were trying to talk me into letting them submit me were telling me. I didn't directly speak with the hiring manager. I do know that Comcast sent the req out to a cattle call and it seemed like everyone with a VOIP phone was trying to work the gig. They all seemed to have the same story. I did not get the name of the division/company nor did I get the name of the commercial WebKit product. I cannot tell you if it was Firebolt https://firebolt.app/docs/articles/wpe/ oh! Here. https://press.opera.com/2013/12/13/opera-launches-the-industrys-first-commercial-grade-chromium-blink-engine-designed-for-rdk-set-top-boxes/ So, yeah, Comcast was part of Opera dumping Qt WebKit per that article. There is someone over in Washington state area doing a bunch of ROKU that had been shopping for Qt/QML people but is now dropping that development branch for their VoT work. Don't remember who. When they said QML I lost all interest and stopped actually listening. I'm guessing they've moved to RDK as well. = The RDK is supported by more than 200 licensees including CE and SoC manufactures, software developers, system integrators, and MVPDs from around the world. It is administered by the RDK Management LLC, a joint venture between Comcast Cable, Time Warner Cable, and Liberty Global. The RDK software is available at no cost to RDK licensees in a shared source manner, and RDK community member companies are encouraged to contribute software changes and enhancements to the RDK stack. = Some rather deep pockets behind that. I suspect it will take over at least some chunk of the automotive Infotainment market as well. I haven't touched Electron in a very long time. I'm told it has dramatically improved from those early feeble days. I'm told quite a few other companies are following Tesla and just moving their JavaScript sans the QML into a Chrome browser somewhat captive world. Tesla started their code base pre-RDK so they are doing something different. Either sounds like a short put, but I haven't tried porting something like that. -- Roland Hughes, President Logikal Solutions (630)-205-1593 http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com http://www.infiniteexposure.net http://www.johnsmith-book.com http://www.logikalblog.com http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Mixing Commercial and Open Source license for different projects
Hi James, You asked if it is allowed for a developer who has purchased commercial license of Qt for project A to work on project B using open-source license of Qt. Assuming that these projects are separate (independent and not related to each other in any way), this is possible. The reason for limitation of mixing open-source and commercial versions is indented to prevent some person(s) who do not have a commercial license to use open-source version of Qt for work benefitting the commercially licensed software. This is not the case in the situation you described as long as these projects really are separate (not just paid by different companies). Yours, Tuukka From: Interest on behalf of James Maxwell Date: Sunday, 14. March 2021 at 16.32 To: interest@qt-project.org Subject: [Interest] Mixing Commercial and Open Source license for different projects Hi, I am confused by the requirement of not mixing licenses, see the discussion in this thread: https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/2020-March/034737.html The situation is as follows: I am an independent software developer. If my customer A wants to use a commercial license and my customer B wants to use the GPL orLGPL license, can I still develop software for both? For A I need a commercial license. Am I then still allowed to use QtCreator under my commercial license to develop a LGPL project for customer B? Best regards, James ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Mixing Commercial and Open Source license for different projects
Yes, such a setup would be is possible for me. Am Di., 16. März 2021 um 17:02 Uhr schrieb Giuseppe D'Angelo < giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com>: > Il 15/03/21 16:16, James Maxwell ha scritto: > > Is there even a difference between the GPL creator and commercial > > creator? I feared that once I have a license, whenever I use any > > QtCreator it is commercially licensed. > > > > But using QtCreator is not actually my main concern. If I have a > > commercial Qt license, can I still develop for projects which are going > > to be released under LGPL where also other people don't have a Qt > > license (of course assuming we only use LGPL Qt and nothing of the > > commercial only parts). > > No matter what the eventual differences between commercial Creator / > open source Creator are (if any); but would it be a problem for you to > use commercial Qt / Qt Creator for the commercial customer, and open > source Qt / Qt Creator for the open source code? > > (Not dealing with the practical aspects of having multiple Qt > installations and what not. Again, I'm just asking if such a setup is > not possible for some specific reasons.) > > Thank you, > > -- > 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 > > ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Mixing Commercial and Open Source license for different projects
Hey, On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 04:16:53PM +0100, James Maxwell wrote: > If I have a commercial Qt license, can I still develop for projects > which are going to be released under LGPL where also other people > don't have a Qt license (of course assuming we only use LGPL Qt and > nothing of the commercial only parts). > > I am afraid of the following: "(ii) use Licensed Software for creation of > any software created with or incorporating Open Source Qt" > what does licensed software mean? If I have Qt commercial, do I always use > Qt under commercial license and thus cannot create any software using open > source qt? The license text has a definition of "Licensed Software". Most notably, "Licensed Software does not include [...] Open Source Qt.". FWIW the licensing FAQ[1] says: Mixing Qt commercial licenses with Qt open-source licenses *in one project/product* is not permitted. (emphasis mine), and in the earlier discussion here[2], Tuukka Turunen said: For completely independent projects/products this is fine. Note that these really should not be same or in practice the same - or in any way depending, relating, using etc each other as defined in the license agreement. That all being said, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not associated with The Qt Company in any way. Florian [1] https://www.qt.io/faq/2.7.-can-some-developers-in-our-team-working-on-the-same-project-use-open-source-version-of-qt-and-some-developers-use-commercial-version-of-qt [2] https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/2020-March/034786.html -- m...@the-compiler.org | https://www.qutebrowser.org https://bruhin.software/ | https://github.com/sponsors/The-Compiler/ GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | https://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc I love long mails! | https://email.is-not-s.ms/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Mixing Commercial and Open Source license for different projects
Il 15/03/21 16:16, James Maxwell ha scritto: Is there even a difference between the GPL creator and commercial creator? I feared that once I have a license, whenever I use any QtCreator it is commercially licensed. But using QtCreator is not actually my main concern. If I have a commercial Qt license, can I still develop for projects which are going to be released under LGPL where also other people don't have a Qt license (of course assuming we only use LGPL Qt and nothing of the commercial only parts). No matter what the eventual differences between commercial Creator / open source Creator are (if any); but would it be a problem for you to use commercial Qt / Qt Creator for the commercial customer, and open source Qt / Qt Creator for the open source code? (Not dealing with the practical aspects of having multiple Qt installations and what not. Again, I'm just asking if such a setup is not possible for some specific reasons.) Thank you, -- 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] Mixing Commercial and Open Source license for, different projects
That would be the FUD On 3/16/21 6:00 AM, James Maxwell wrote: I am afraid of the following: "(ii) use Licensed Software for creation of any software created with or incorporating Open Source Qt" what does licensed software mean? If I have Qt commercial, do I always use Qt under commercial license and thus cannot create any software using open source qt? Been hashed out on here many times. __Never__ fully resolved. At one point the licensing was worded in such a way that if you were using Qt commercial you could not use Wireshark, Doxygen, or any of the OpenSource projects built with Qt. Visit the archive page: https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/ pull down the zipped files for the past 18 months or so and unzip them into a directory tree. Use Sublime Text 3, Emacs, or just plain grep to search for wireshark, doxygen, and commercial in different searches. That should identify all of the message threads. There was no real resolution. At one point the wording was so broad and vague that if anyone anywhere at Intel had a commercial license, Thiago couldn't work on OpenSource Qt. You will find that discussion in the archive as well. Many of the companies I'm in contact with have either begun or completed the abandonment of Qt. For now my policy has been: If a client wants me to use commercial Qt, it is their license on their machine. Period. The half dozen machines in my office have only the OpenSource stuff. If you feel compelled to straddle the fence, then go onto eBay (or where ever) and get yourself a ~$300 off-lease computer for your OpenSource development and a KVM switch so you can use your same monitors and toggle between two machines. Right now that is the only way I have found to be "sure." Study up on the alternatives because an industry wide migration appears to be happening. One of the best known manufacturers of high end video/audio products for concert halls, movie making, theaters, all the way down to conference rooms and your own home theater dumped Qt during the pandemic. As entrenched as Qt was there I didn't think it was physically possible. They did it in under a year. That was the solution they were forced into. FUD + death-of-perpetual-license = mass-company-exit -- Roland Hughes, President Logikal Solutions (630)-205-1593 http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com http://www.infiniteexposure.net http://www.johnsmith-book.com http://www.logikalblog.com http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
[Interest] Mixing Commercial and Open Source license for different projects
There is no particular reason. I just don't understand what all of this means. Is there even a difference between the GPL creator and commercial creator? I feared that once I have a license, whenever I use any QtCreator it is commercially licensed. But using QtCreator is not actually my main concern. If I have a commercial Qt license, can I still develop for projects which are going to be released under LGPL where also other people don't have a Qt license (of course assuming we only use LGPL Qt and nothing of the commercial only parts). I am afraid of the following: "(ii) use Licensed Software for creation of any software created with or incorporating Open Source Qt" what does licensed software mean? If I have Qt commercial, do I always use Qt under commercial license and thus cannot create any software using open source qt? ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Mixing Commercial and Open Source license for different projects
Il 14/03/21 15:29, James Maxwell ha scritto: For A I need a commercial license. Am I then still allowed to use QtCreator under my commercial license to develop a LGPL project for customer B? Apart from whether it's allowed or not, is there any particular reason for going this way rather than using the GPL edition of QtCreator to develop for customer B? (I'm not being dismissive, it's an actual open question). Cheers, -- 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] Mixing Commercial and Open Source license for, different projects
The short answer would be no. You have to use an OpenSource version for customer B and a commercial version for A. This is one of the reasons I keep 5-6 machines in my office. I load one up for use with a specific client. When a client wants me to use commercial they have to acquire the license and send a machine. I do that so the license is never installed on anything I own. They do that because they usually have a VPN and some other software they want pre-loaded. This is all part of the licensing FUD that has been happening for years now. Adding insult to injury, if you have been following the discussions per the death of OpenSource LTS (pretty much the death of OpenSource Qt) and the add-on arguments about other OpenSource projects which are fully OpenSource yet will not be kept current in OpenSource Qt 5.x now that 6 has come out and the other brew-ha-ha over fixes not being provided to OpenSource as part of the death of OpenSource LTS, you wouldn't even want to _try_ using your commercial version to write code for an OpenSource project. There will be lots of stuff fix or new in it that simply doesn't exist in the OpenSource version and will not for many many months, if ever at all. You have touched on one of the many reasons so many companies are opting to abandon Qt. I just talked with two more this week who had been firmly entrenched with Qt for years. Both are rather large names in their industries. Both re-wrote everything under Electron. https://www.electronjs.org/ The licensing FUD and the death of OpenSource LTS were the reasons they left. On 3/15/21 6:00 AM, James Maxwell wrote: For A I need a commercial license. Am I then still allowed to use QtCreator under my commercial license to develop a LGPL project for customer B? -- Roland Hughes, President Logikal Solutions (630)-205-1593 http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com http://www.infiniteexposure.net http://www.johnsmith-book.com http://www.logikalblog.com http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
[Interest] Mixing Commercial and Open Source license for different projects
Hi, I am confused by the requirement of not mixing licenses, see the discussion in this thread: https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/2020-March/034737.html The situation is as follows: I am an independent software developer. If my customer A wants to use a commercial license and my customer B wants to use the GPL orLGPL license, can I still develop software for both? For A I need a commercial license. Am I then still allowed to use QtCreator under my commercial license to develop a LGPL project for customer B? Best regards, James ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
