On Wednesday 17 September 2014 20:19:27 Knoll Lars wrote:
It's supposed to mean that you can modify Qt's source code without having
to release the changes. I agree that the text is not clear enough and it
should be somehow changed.
Could you ask that be updated?
Or use two different ways to
On Sunday 21 September 2014 10:08:09 Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 20:19:27 Knoll Lars wrote:
It's supposed to mean that you can modify Qt's source code without having
to release the changes. I agree that the text is not clear enough and it
should be somehow changed.
Your sentence is correct as long as the user *ships* qt libs alongside his
apps! If the application uses system libraries, then IMHO, is not his
responsibility to provide the sources for Qt.
Right. And when using Ministro, it's the Ministro packager's responsibility to
provide the sources.
I enjoy the new look and the fluidity of the site. It conveys a sense
of what developers can achieve graphically with the technology
available in the Qt framework.
One thing I feel that could be improved is http://www.qt.io/product/
-- it gives me the impression that Qt is a commercial-only
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Kuba Ober k...@mareimbrium.org wrote:
My only worry is that it seems like an idle exercise. Why spend all this
time doing something that, ultimately, serves no real purpose? Qt’s image
ultimately depends on the quality of the code and the documentation that
- Original Message -
From: Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 14:06:15 André Somers wrote:
Absolutely. FOSS users have, by definition, every right to modify the
source code. So yes, the current qt.io site is very misleading there.
They just
On Thursday 18 September 2014 04:31:20 BogDan wrote:
Your sentence is correct as long as the user *ships* qt libs alongside his
apps! If the application uses system libraries, then IMHO, is not his
responsibility to provide the sources for Qt.
Right. And when using Ministro, it's the Ministro
On Tuesday 16 September 2014 16:51:04 Mark Gaiser wrote:
I like the site! It looks clear and to the point imho.
But i kinda fail to see the point in having - yet another - domain for Qt.
I mean, we've had:
- Trolltech
- qt.nokia...
- qt.digia...
- qt-project
and now we have qt.io. Yes,
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 08:55:18 Olivier Goffart wrote:
On Tuesday 16 September 2014 16:51:04 Mark Gaiser wrote:
I like the site! It looks clear and to the point imho.
But i kinda fail to see the point in having - yet another - domain for Qt.
I mean, we've had:
- Trolltech
-
On Tuesday 16 September 2014 12:11:26 Knoll Lars wrote:
Hi everybody,
I’m happy to tell you that we’re making significant progress towards the
new unified web page that I’ve first been talking about at the contributor
summit. We just launched the first stage of it on http://qt.io. For now
Milian Wolff schreef op 17-9-2014 12:38:
On Tuesday 16 September 2014 12:11:26 Knoll Lars wrote:
Hi everybody,
I’m happy to tell you that we’re making significant progress towards the
new unified web page that I’ve first been talking about at the contributor
summit. We just launched the
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 13:29:50 André Somers wrote:
Milian Wolff schreef op 17-9-2014 12:38:
On Tuesday 16 September 2014 12:11:26 Knoll Lars wrote:
Hi everybody,
I’m happy to tell you that we’re making significant progress towards the
new unified web page that I’ve first been
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 14:06:15 André Somers wrote:
Absolutely. FOSS users have, by definition, every right to modify the
source code. So yes, the current qt.io site is very misleading there.
They just don't have the right to publish closed source software based
on those modified
Op 17 sep. 2014 om 18:05 heeft Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com
het volgende geschreven:
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 14:06:15 André Somers wrote:
Absolutely. FOSS users have, by definition, every right to modify the
source code. So yes, the current qt.io site is very
On Sep 16, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Knoll Lars lars.kn...@digia.com wrote:
Hi everybody,
I’m happy to tell you that we’re making significant progress towards the
new unified web page that I’ve first been talking about at the contributor
summit. We just launched the first stage of it on
On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Milian Wolff milian.wo...@kdab.com wrote:
On Tuesday 16 September 2014 12:11:26 Knoll Lars wrote:
Hi everybody,
I’m happy to tell you that we’re making significant progress towards the
new unified web page that I’ve first been talking about at the contributor
On 17/09/14 20:00, André Somers an...@familiesomers.nl wrote:
Op 17 sep. 2014 om 18:05 heeft Thiago Macieira
thiago.macie...@intel.com het volgende geschreven:
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 14:06:15 André Somers wrote:
Absolutely. FOSS users have, by definition, every right to modify the
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 20:19:27 Knoll Lars wrote:
It's supposed to mean that you can modify Qt's source code without having
to release the changes. I agree that the text is not clear enough and it
should be somehow changed.
Right. The point isn't the modify, it's the release the
On 18/09/14 05:09, Kuba Ober wrote:
One of the reasons I loath to recommend to the management to go back to
paying for Qt licenses is that we’d have been sponsoring what amounts to 2 or
3 major rebrandings and “revamps”, and it seems like throwing money down the
drain. As a user, I want
Hi everybody,
I’m happy to tell you that we’re making significant progress towards the
new unified web page that I’ve first been talking about at the contributor
summit. We just launched the first stage of it on http://qt.io. For now
qt.digia.com is going to redirect to it. I hope you will like
On Tuesday 16 September 2014 14:11:26 Knoll Lars wrote:
In addition, we also now have a new company name for the Qt part of
Digia. It’s simply ‘The Qt Company’.
How boring! But you can rename the company hundred times... For me, it
will always be The Trolls™ ;)
Christoph Feck (kdepepo)
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Knoll Lars lars.kn...@digia.com wrote:
Hi everybody,
I’m happy to tell you that we’re making significant progress towards the
new unified web page that I’ve first been talking about at the contributor
summit. We just launched the first stage of it on
On Tuesday 16 September 2014 16:51:04 Mark Gaiser wrote:
But i kinda fail to see the point in having - yet another - domain for Qt.
I mean, we've had:
- Trolltech
- qt.nokia...
- qt.digia...
- qt-project
and now we have qt.io. Yes, it's a nice short domain, but having
domain changes every
On 16/09/14 16:51, Mark Gaiser mark...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Knoll Lars lars.kn...@digia.com wrote:
Hi everybody,
I’m happy to tell you that we’re making significant progress towards the
new unified web page that I’ve first been talking about at the
contributor
On 16-9-2014 20:50, Knoll Lars wrote:
On 16/09/14 16:51, Mark Gaiser mark...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Knoll Lars lars.kn...@digia.com wrote:
Hi everybody,
I’m happy to tell you that we’re making significant progress towards the
new unified web page that I’ve first
What was wrong with qt-project in that respect? And what is the status
of that site (and project) now then?
It sounds a bit like the xkcd standards comic [1]: adding a new domain
to unite all the information from the existing ones...
Lol. The elusive one-ring-to-rule-em-all! That xkcd is
26 matches
Mail list logo
