Hi,
Correct. Qt PDF license has not been changed.
Some of the contributors preferred to keep the license as LGPL. When we were
checking this, some info did not get through. So while the change to GPL would
be completely fine for many, there was still concerns and pushback towards
changing
Am 27.01.2020 um 15:34 schrieb Lars Knoll:
Hi all,
The Qt Company has done some adjustments to the Qt will be offered in the
future. Please check out https://www.qt.io/blog/qt-offering-changes-2020 .
The change consists of three parts.
One is a change in policy regarding the LTS releases,
Den ons 29 jan. 2020 kl 06:46 skrev Thiago Macieira :
>
> On Tuesday, 28 January 2020 21:03:49 PST André Somers wrote:
> > On 29/01/2020 04:27, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > So you're advocating being acquired by a bigger company that has a
> > > different business and regards Qt only as a means to
Hi all,
Qt 5.15 Feature Freeze should be in effect this Friday (31st January). Is all
needed in place early enough so that we can keep the schedule? Please tell
immediately if something mandatory is still missing (e.g replacements for
everything that gets removed in 6.0 etc)...
br,
Jani
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 20:03, Tim Murison wrote:
>
>
> > The Qt Company is a public company; we are not yet profitable, but things
> > are getting there. Given how significant the Qt Company contribution to Qt
> > is, making it a sustainable business should be in the interest of anyone
> >
On Tuesday, 28 January 2020 21:03:49 PST André Somers wrote:
> On 29/01/2020 04:27, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > So you're advocating being acquired by a bigger company that has a
> > different business and regards Qt only as a means to an end?
> >
> > Can you spell "Nokia" ?
>
> Can you explain
On Tuesday, 28 January 2020 21:02:10 PST André Somers wrote:
> Hi,
> > Just buy the commercial licence upfront, or release as Open Source.
>
> So, you think it is reasonable that a company that has been using Open
> Source for a while successfully, but now would like to expand their
> application
On 29/01/2020 04:27, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 January 2020 08:09:00 PST Matthew Woehlke wrote:
I agree... somewhat. Where I disagree is that I would go even further
and suggest rethinking their entire business model. Maybe look at
companies with a strong and successful open source
Hi,
On 29/01/2020 04:23, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 January 2020 10:01:43 PST Tim Murison wrote:
2. Don’t scare people off before they even start. Much lower initial
pricing, no historical licensing, more distant ramps for price increases.
Historical licensing cannot go away so
On Tuesday, 28 January 2020 03:52:49 PST Tino Pyssysalo wrote:
> It is also possible to transfer the qtaccount.ini file to a CI machine,
> which removes the need for manual/interactive login. The qtaccount.ini just
> contains the hash of the password.
I suggest you be very careful in suggesting
On Tuesday, 28 January 2020 02:07:00 PST NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
> There will be no offline installer for non paying people. That is the
> hurdle. Did you even read the actual blog post?
No. I assumed the relevant information was in both places.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT)
On Tuesday, 28 January 2020 08:09:00 PST Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> I agree... somewhat. Where I disagree is that I would go even further
> and suggest rethinking their entire business model. Maybe look at
> companies with a strong and successful open source story. (Say, isn't
> there one of those
On Monday, 27 January 2020 23:59:10 PST Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> And that's really bad news How many wget will get broken?
> This cannot be true, Lars, tell me that download.qt.io will still work w/o
> login/password. Please!
The source code on download.qt.io remains anonymously
On Tuesday, 28 January 2020 10:01:43 PST Tim Murison wrote:
> 2. Don’t scare people off before they even start. Much lower initial
> pricing, no historical licensing, more distant ramps for price increases.
Historical licensing cannot go away so long as companies develop with the Open
Source
On Tuesday, 28 January 2020 06:48:53 PST Morten Sørvig wrote:
> There are several possible solutions:
>
> 1) The scale factor for screen positions is 1: [the current choice]
> Simple to implement. Device-independent virtual geometry may now have
> “gaps”, unoccupied by any actual screen. This
On Tuesday, 28 January 2020 09:03:43 PST Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> With current process some contributors make efforts to ensure that their bug
> fixes are applied to all branches that are still open, even if it includes
> dealing with source conflicts. If LTS branches are not public, it might
>
/r/ThereWasAnAttempt
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 12:53 PM
> From: "Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development"
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: [Development] QtPDF did not change license
>
> Il 28/01/20 18:37, Jason H ha scritto:
> > - the previous license changes Tukka announced
>> Maybe you all have great ideas that we missed though. What kind of change do
>> you think would give companies a really good reason to buy a license, without
>> at the same time hurting the community?
I wonder if selling per-developer licenses is still a sustainable business
model at all. We
> The Qt Company is a public company; we are not yet profitable, but things are
> getting there. Given how significant the Qt Company contribution to Qt is,
> making it a sustainable business should be in the interest of anyone that
> wants to see Qt continue to be a successful and evolving
Il 28/01/20 18:37, Jason H ha scritto:
- the previous license changes Tukka announced (QtPDF,
etc:https://www.qt.io/blog/change-in-open-source-licensing-of-qt-wayland-compositor-qt-application-manager-and-qt-pdf)
As per subject. The blog post is inaccurate.
On 28/01/2020 12.03, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> 28.01.2020, 19:57, "Matthew Woehlke" :
>> On 28/01/2020 11.07, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
>>> But it will discourage contributions, and encourage competition from
>>> other Qt consulting companies
>>
>> At this point, I'm not sure that's a *bad*
So I've had a night to think about and react to this.
I want Qt to be successful and make lots of money in addition to taking over
the world. I can appreciate this approach as a way to drive sales. After all,
anything that gets Qt for Mobile more complete is very much appreciated. ;-)
However
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 17:37, Volker Hilsheimer
wrote:
>
>
> The Qt Company is a public company; we are not yet profitable, but things
> are getting there. Given how significant the Qt Company contribution to Qt
> is, making it a sustainable business should be in the interest of anyone
> that
28.01.2020, 19:57, "Matthew Woehlke" :
> On 28/01/2020 11.07, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
>> But it will discourage contributions, and encourage competition from
>> other Qt consulting companies
>
> At this point, I'm not sure that's a *bad* thing...
I'm pretty sure that "discourage
On 28/01/2020 11.07, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
> But it will discourage contributions, and encourage competition from
> other Qt consulting companies
At this point, I'm not sure that's a *bad* thing...
> (I've written more on that here:
>
> On 28 Jan 2020, at 17:07, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> On 28/01/2020 02.46, Bogdan Vatra via Development wrote:
>> Folks, you have to understand that The Qt Company must pay its developers!
>
> Sure... but how's that working out for them under their current business
> model? Is twisting the
On 28/01/2020 10.55, NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
>> Won't someone please step up and do it for us?"
>
> Which is why I don't understand how the proposed model is supposed to help
> TQtC and the community.
> A lot of stuff they are dropping for opensource users will simply move to
> less trusted
On 28/01/2020 02.46, Bogdan Vatra via Development wrote:
> Folks, you have to understand that The Qt Company must pay its developers!
Sure... but how's that working out for them under their current business
model? Is twisting the screws even tighter on customers that (based on
my impression from
On 27/01/20 17:34, Lars Knoll wrote:
> The Qt Company has done some adjustments to the Qt will be offered in the
> future. Please check out https://www.qt.io/blog/qt-offering-changes-2020 .
[...]
> None of these changes should affect how Qt is being developed. There won’t be
> any changes to
> Won't someone please step up and do it for us?"
Which is why I don't understand how the proposed model is supposed to help
TQtC and the community.
A lot of stuff they are dropping for opensource users will simply move to
less trusted and perhaps less stable sources but will still be perfectly
On 28/01/2020 01.37, Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> You might have missed the info because it is in the blog post, but not in
> Lars email:
>
> There will be no more open source offline installer.
Correction: there will be no offline installer *provided by TQtC*.
Like Nikolai¹, what I expect to
On 28/01/2020 10:52, Christian Kandeler wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:09:43 +0100
Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:
Il 27/01/20 16:57, Benjamin TERRIER ha scritto:
*We do hope that this eases your concerns, and that we can continue
with your trust*.
Hi,
On 28/01/2020 12:52, Tino Pyssysalo wrote:
On 27.1.2020, 23.53, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira"
wrote:
> On segunda-feira, 27 de janeiro de 2020 10:39:44 PST Elvis Stansvik
wrote:
> > So? I have an account because I want to contribute. Does not mean I
> >
> On 27 Jan 2020, at 20:16, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> I had fixed this prior to 5.13 but the patch was never accepted:
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/188493
> https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-58329
> https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/
>
Hi!
El mar., 28 ene. 2020 10:46, Bogdan Vatra escribió:
> În ziua de marți, 28 ianuarie 2020, la 15:26:34 EET, Lisandro Damián
> Nicanor
> Pérez Meyer a scris:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On 20/01/27 06:18, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > On segunda-feira, 27 de janeiro de 2020 14:48:17 PST Alexander Akulich
În ziua de marți, 28 ianuarie 2020, la 15:26:34 EET, Lisandro Damián Nicanor
Pérez Meyer a scris:
> Hi!
>
> On 20/01/27 06:18, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On segunda-feira, 27 de janeiro de 2020 14:48:17 PST Alexander Akulich
wrote:
> > > I would expect a significant negative effect on the
On 20/01/27 02:34, Lars Knoll wrote:
> Hi all,
[snip]
> The second change is that a Qt Account will be in the future required for
> binary packages. Source code will continue to be available as currently. This
> will simplify distribution and integration with the Marketplace. In addition,
> we
Hi!
On 20/01/27 06:18, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On segunda-feira, 27 de janeiro de 2020 14:48:17 PST Alexander Akulich wrote:
> > I would expect a significant negative effect on the quality of Qt
> > shipped in Linux distributions and thus negative effect on the
> > Qt-based applications and Qt
On 20/01/27 03:00, Tuukka Turunen wrote:
>
> Hi Ekke,
>
> Currently Qt MQTT is not part of Qt for Device Creator or Application
> Development product, see: https://www.qt.io/features
>
> Huge amount of other libraries are included, but unfortunately MQTT is only
> available as part of the Qt
On 20/01/28 01:51, coroberti . wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:01 PM ekke wrote:
> >
> > Am 28.01.20 um 11:14 schrieb coroberti .:
> > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:55 AM Konstantin Shegunov
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> The third change is that The Qt Company will in the future also
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:01 PM ekke wrote:
>
> Am 28.01.20 um 11:14 schrieb coroberti .:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:55 AM Konstantin Shegunov
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> The third change is that The Qt Company will in the future also offer a
> >>> lower priced product for small
Hi,
We have two things going on in dev right now:
(1) Quite many changes are going into qtbase right now that change
fundamentals, in a very positive way, I'd say. And more changes are scheduled.
These typically require follow-up fixes in other repositories, due to use of
private API or
I've been working really hard over the past few years to get Qt used more
within my organisation. However, mandating that our 45 developers all register
Qt accounts is a complete non-starter, especially if only 2 or 3 of them
actually work with UI on a day-to-day basis. For the rest of them,
Also, they really should do this all for LGPL licenses only. It makes no
sense to enforce all these restrictions on the projects that don't generate
any revenue at all. The model isn't realistic not only for small
businesses, it actively punishes open source development where the people
involved
Am 28.01.20 um 11:14 schrieb coroberti .:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:55 AM Konstantin Shegunov
wrote:
The third change is that The Qt Company will in the future also offer a lower
priced product for small businesses. That small business product is btw not
limited to mobile like the
You know what bothers me the most about all this? Qt is becoming your
average AAA game developer. They are essentially selling us time savers.
Most of the attached value of the commercial license isn't something that
is inherent to the license but stuff that everyone can do anyway, just with
a
> That fork will be necessary because you can't just switch
> projects like KDE from Qt 5 to Qt 6 overnight, it will take years to do it!
In light of this, it's probably worth thinking about releasing a new
major version of Qt each year. It also might solve some other problems.
So, how about Qt
>From: Development on behalf of Kevin
>Kofler >
Sona Kurazyan wrote:
> Here are some candidates to be moved there in Qt 6 (see
> https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-80312):
>
> * QLinkedList
> * QRegExp
> * QStateMachine
> * QStringRef
> * QList
> *
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:55 AM Konstantin Shegunov
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 4:36 PM Lars Knoll wrote:
>>
>> One is a change in policy regarding the LTS releases, where the LTS part of
>> a release is in the future going to be restricted to commercial customers.
>> All bug fixes
There will be no offline installer for non paying people. That is the
hurdle. Did you even read the actual blog post?
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 5:22 AM Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> On segunda-feira, 27 de janeiro de 2020 14:47:46 PST NIkolai Marchenko
> wrote:
> > Assuming we have a VM that is
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 4:36 PM Lars Knoll wrote:
> One is a change in policy regarding the LTS releases, where the LTS part
> of a release is in the future going to be restricted to commercial
> customers. All bug fixes will (as agreed on the Qt Contributor Summit) go
> into dev first.
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:09:43 +0100
Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:
> Il 27/01/20 16:57, Benjamin TERRIER ha scritto:
> > *We do hope that this eases your concerns, and that we can continue
> > with your trust*.
> >
> >
On Dienstag, 28. Januar 2020 03:27:04 CET Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On segunda-feira, 27 de janeiro de 2020 15:16:35 PST Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > All security fixes are made available to everyone, for all Qt versions
> > > that they affect, provided it's still a
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, 20:50 Thiago Macieira,
wrote:
> On Monday, 27 January 2020 22:37:47 PST Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> > You might have missed the info because it is in the blog post, but not in
> > Lars email:
> >
> > There will be no more open source offline installer.
>
> Thanks, I stand
54 matches
Mail list logo
