Tino, Volker,
> In a CI/CD pipeline that depends on 3rd party packages like Qt, it’s a good
> idea to manage your own artefact/package repo, so that you have control over
> the versions you are building and testing against - or at the very least to
> become independent of 3rd party infrastructure
> On 18 Feb 2020, at 10:13, Tino Pyssysalo wrote:
>
> On 14.2.2020, 22.17, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 28 January 2020 19:31:34 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 28 January 2020 03:52:49 PST Tino Pyssysalo wrote:
It is also possible to transfer the qtaccount.ini
On 14.2.2020, 22.17, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 January 2020 19:31:34 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > 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
On Tuesday, 28 January 2020 19:31:34 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> 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
> >
Both the "removal of LTS" and "removal of offline installers" serve as
evidence that Tuukka Turunen doesn't care about the Free
Software/Culture movement. In both cases he is actively hurting the
open source side of Qt in order to promote the business side. The work
is already being done to create
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 16:17, coroberti . wrote:
>
> Jason,
> The main market for QtCompany is embedded, automotive, etc.
>
> Mobile is aside with no real sales there.
>
> So, unless community develops features required,
> do not expect to get new mobile features fast.
> Sorry to say that.
We
t; > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 at 9:34 AM
> > From: "Lars Knoll"
> > To: "Qt development mailing list"
> > Subject: [Development] Changes to Qt offering
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The Qt Company has done some adjustments to the Qt wil
Hey,
On Monday, February 3, 2020 10:28:53 AM EET Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 08:58, Bogdan Vatra wrote:
> > > Qt installer resumes downloads after a network connection break.
> > > apt-get does not. :)
> > >
> > You must be kidding, apt it's (one of) the best package
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 08:58, Bogdan Vatra wrote:
> > Qt installer resumes downloads after a network connection break.
> > apt-get does not. :)
>
> You must be kidding, apt it's (one of) the best package manager! It resumes
> the download(s) from the same point from where the connection dropped.
În ziua de duminică, 2 februarie 2020, la 13:14:13 EET, Ville Voutilainen a
scris:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 18:11, Volker Hilsheimer
wrote:
> > I wonder where all this love for the Qt installer comes from. I personally
> > consider “sudo apt-get install -y qtcreator” or “brew install
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 18:11, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> I wonder where all this love for the Qt installer comes from. I personally
> consider “sudo apt-get install -y qtcreator” or “brew install qt-creator” or
> “choco install qtcreator" to be vastly superior to using the installer UI,
> and
-
From: Development [mailto:development-boun...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Mark
De Wit
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 1:06 AM
To: Qt development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Development] Changes to Qt offering
I'm guessing the Qt installer has now been updated in line with the licensing
changes?
: Tino Pyssysalo
> Sent: 31 January 2020 09:32
> To: Mark De Wit ; Qt development mailing list
>
> Subject: Re: [Development] Changes to Qt offering
>
> The problem must be somewhere else. There are no installer changes in
> production yet.
> --
> Tino Pyssy
The problem must be somewhere else. There are no installer changes in
production yet.
--
Tino Pyssysalo
Qt Installer Product Owner
On 31.1.2020, 11.09, "Development on behalf of Mark De Wit"
wrote:
> I'm guessing the Qt installer has now been updated in line with the
licensing
developers in this company to
create Qt accounts, that's a non-starter...
Mark
> -Original Message-
> From: Development On Behalf Of
> Mark De Wit
> Sent: 28 January 2020 11:38
> To: Lars Knoll ; Qt development mailing list
>
> Subject: Re: [Development] C
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 05:22:04PM -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 29/01/2020 17.13, Konstantin Shegunov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 11:55 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> >> We need more open-source-meets-kickstarter...
> >
> > ehm, Patreon?
>
> Aside from issues with Patreon's reputation,
I run a small business. we are 2.5 developers (one is working half time),
and our revenue is about 150 000 $. We do general development for other
small businesses, from web applications to desktop software. Probably about
half of our revenue is based on software where we use Qt.
So we don't
On Wednesday, 29 January 2020 16:55:18 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> That's because we're sloppy and haven't done a proper job. The security
> advisory was supposed to go out at the same time as the Qt 5.14.1 release
> announcement. But the release announcement went out without the security
>
On Wednesday, 29 January 2020 08:10:23 PST Robert Loehning wrote:
> [1] wasn't mentioned anywhere on qt.io and I didn't notice it on
> annou...@qt-project.org, either.
>
> [2] was mentioned in a blog post, but I could not find any public steps
> for reproducing the issue, so one cannot test
On Wednesday, 29 January 2020 13:55:49 PST Alejandro Exojo wrote:
> If we don't have this, we could end up with random projects on
> Gitlab/Github, with custom cherry picks from dev applied, and the community
> effort wasted because it's just plain hard to coordinate for an effort like
> this
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 13:01, Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 11:40:46PM +0100, Filippo Cucchetto wrote:
> >Maybe you didn't get it but i meant to both put a reasonable price for
> >a commercial license (500$) and turning everything GPL or commercial.
> >Making everything
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 11:40:46PM +0100, Filippo Cucchetto wrote:
Maybe you didn't get it but i meant to both put a reasonable price for
a commercial license (500$) and turning everything GPL or commercial.
Making everything GPL forces all LGPL to buy a commercial license. This
obviously
Il 29/01/20 23:40, Filippo Cucchetto ha scritto:
Let's be clear, here all people are just telling their own opinions
(you too) and i'm not pretending
to be correct. I've no proof but: first, the offer announced here is
of 499$ thus not very different
from the one i've stated, second i've pointed
> Just because it seems like a good price for you doesn't mean it's a good
> price. Reducing the licence price to one tenth what it is today could mean the
> revenues for the company reduce to one tenth too, which means the development
> team might need to reduce to around one tenth what it is.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:22 AM Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
> Aside from issues with Patreon's reputation
I was not aware of such, but I'm going to take your word for it.
> Besides, I was thinking more along the lines of something that could
> integrate with other OSS tools (e.g. GitHub).
>
I personally want a goal oriented fundraiser model. Like "revamp
qtwidgets", "do a round of serious bugfixes in qml" etc
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:23 AM Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
> On 29/01/2020 17.13, Konstantin Shegunov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 11:55 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> >> We
On 29/01/2020 17.13, Konstantin Shegunov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 11:55 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> We need more open-source-meets-kickstarter...
>
> ehm, Patreon?
Aside from issues with Patreon's reputation, there's a reason I wrote
"kickstarter". I can't think of any instance where
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 11:55 PM Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
> We need more open-source-meets-kickstarter...
>
ehm, Patreon?
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
On 29/01/2020 12.12, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote:
> BTW: in the past I would have convinced one of my customers to buy
> support for the Open Source version if it had been available. If there
> was a simple possibility to buy a single support incident (say, for
> 100Euros) I would even do this
> You have absolutely no information on how elastic the Qt commercial
price is, so kindly don't speculate on what price would be good.
Let me pipe in about what people think of Qt's licensing model. I won't
call names but I've been contacted just today by someone who has been
legally bullied by
On 20/01/29 04:02, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
[snip]
> I wonder where all this love for the Qt installer comes from. I personally
> consider “sudo apt-get install -y qtcreator” or “brew install qt-creator” or
> “choco install qtcreator" to be vastly superior to using the installer UI,
> and very
On 20/01/29 10:39, ekke wrote:
> Am 29.01.20 um 09:57 schrieb Cristián Maureira-Fredes:
> >
> > I really want to believe that the new startup price is the beginning
> > of having ad-hoc pricing for everyone, and hopefully in the future
> > we can also see "medium-size company prices" or
> >
On 2020-01-29 17:02, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
You obviously don’t trust that TQtC will treat the data the
online-installer either demands or requires with the appropriate
confidence. So, shouldn't you build Qt from sources? Your IP address
is PII, after all. Why did you trust that The Qt
Hi,
On 2020-01-29 09:52, Cristián Maureira-Fredes wrote:
I understand the video is an exaggeration,
Is it? I found it was pretty much bang on. Even for Qt: I just counted -
it took me 5 clicks, most of them not very intuitive, to download the Qt
installer I currently need (Linux 32bit on a
On Wednesday, 29 January 2020 00:52:00 PST Cristián Maureira-Fredes wrote:
> Since TQtC has commercial costumers, we will internally fork
> the latest bug fix release, and will start adding patches on
> top of that on request of the costumers, but hey! all those
> patches will be on Gerrit, so if
On Wednesday, 29 January 2020 00:25:22 PST Filippo Cucchetto wrote:
> Qt should find a good balance between licensing costs and investors.
> Taking JetBrains as an example of similar (profitable) company you can see
> that for a single developer all their tools suite costs 600 euros yearly
>
On 28/01/2020 22.27, 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
On 29/01/20 19:02, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> You obviously don’t trust that TQtC will treat the data the online-installer
> either demands or requires with the appropriate confidence. So, shouldn't you
> build Qt from sources? Your IP address is PII, after all. Why did you trust
> that The Qt
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 17:02, Volker Hilsheimer
wrote:
> > On 29 Jan 2020, at 15:20, Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 14:10, Cristián Maureira-Fredes <
> cristian.maureira-fre...@qt.io> wrote:
> >>
> >> but for Windows/macOS this might have three solutions (maybe more):
> >> -
On Wednesday, 29 January 2020 01:09:25 PST Nicolas Arnaud-Cormos via
Development wrote:
> Hi Thiago,
>
> On 29/01/2020 04:25, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > The source code on download.qt.io remains anonymously accessible.
>
> How do you know that?
> What would prevent The Qt Company to use Qt
On 29/01/2020 17:02, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
On 29 Jan 2020, at 15:20, Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 14:10, Cristián Maureira-Fredes
wrote:
but for Windows/macOS this might have three solutions (maybe more):
- Using package managers that provide Qt,
- Download and compile
On 28/01/2020 11.37, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> The Qt Company is a public company
...well, that may not be helping. How many of the shareholders both care
about the community and are sufficiently involved to make those feelings
known?
> Given how significant the Qt Company contribution to Qt
Am 29.01.20 um 09:52 schrieb Cristián Maureira-Fredes:
> I think nobody at Qt will be so irresponsible of not notifying
> security patches, and I'm certain we will work around this issue,
> to maybe distributed in a better way for Open Source users.
Hi Cristián,
what exactly do you consider a
> On 29 Jan 2020, at 15:20, Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 14:10, Cristián Maureira-Fredes
> wrote:
>>
>> but for Windows/macOS this might have three solutions (maybe more):
>> - Using package managers that provide Qt,
>> - Download and compile Qt by themselves,
>> - Create
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 14:10, Cristián Maureira-Fredes <
cristian.maureira-fre...@qt.io> wrote:
>
> but for Windows/macOS this might have three solutions (maybe more):
> - Using package managers that provide Qt,
> - Download and compile Qt by themselves,
> - Create an account and use the
On Wed, 2020-01-29 at 13:44 +, Cristián Maureira-Fredes wrote:
> Hey Kyle,
>
> thanks for your answer,
> out of curiosity, are there some past business models
> that failed inside Kitware? or it has been support only since
> the beginning?
>
> What I'm trying to find out is that if maybe
On 1/29/20 2:27 PM, Kyle Edwards via Development wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-01-29 at 08:20 +0100, Elvis Stansvik wrote:
>> Just want to add here: Even if CMake is probably the Kitware project
>> with the largest number of users if counting developers, I don't
>> think
>> it's their flagship product.
On Wed, 2020-01-29 at 08:20 +0100, Elvis Stansvik wrote:
> Just want to add here: Even if CMake is probably the Kitware project
> with the largest number of users if counting developers, I don't
> think
> it's their flagship product. That would be the VTK framework (2500
> classes, 1 MLoC) and
On 1/29/20 2:01 PM, Andras Mantia via Development wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 2:25:40 PM EET Cristián Maureira-Fredes wrote:
>> This is nothing new Giuseppe,
>> people actively using Qt will have Qt accounts because they either
>> use our JIRA, and also Gerrit, son for those
On 1/29/20 10:36 AM, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:
> Il 29/01/20 09:52, Cristián Maureira-Fredes ha scritto:
>>
>> Currently, you can create a Qt Account with your email
>> and a password, when you received the email, you confirm by clicking on
>> the link, and then you can optionally
Hi Alberto,
No, that is not the plan. For open-source user all releases are to be similar.
New patch releases come until the next feature release is out. For commercial
license holders, there will be additional patch releases available for selected
Qt versions (Qt 5.15, Qt 6.2, ...)
Yours,
On 29/01/20 13:02, Edward Welbourne wrote:
> Clarification: we'll be moving to "all commits land first on dev and are
> cherry-picked out to other branches that need them" in place of our
> present merge-based module. Where Cristián says "all those patches will
> be on Gerrit", they'll be on dev
" will the owners of a commercial license be given access to the branch? "
=> Yes.
Yours,
Tuukka
On 29.1.2020, 13.21, "Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development"
wrote:
Hi,
Il 29/01/20 11:02, Edward Welbourne ha scritto:
> They'll be cherry-picked
> from there to a
Hi Antonio,
Like the announcement says: "Starting with Qt 5.15, long term support (LTS)
will only be available to commercial customers." There is no plan currently to
change ongoing Qt 5.9 LTS or Qt 5.12 LTS support period.
Qt 5.12 is currently in Strict phase, next step moving to Very
Hi,
Il 29/01/20 11:02, Edward Welbourne ha scritto:
They'll be cherry-picked
from there to a (presumably) private branch (maybe on a private repo),
so you won't necessarily see the cherry-picked versions, only the dev
versions. So any time the cherry-pick requires adaptation to the LTS,
those
On 27/1/20 15:34, 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.
> Backporting bug fixes
Il 29/01/20 09:52, Cristián Maureira-Fredes ha scritto:
>> Regarding the LTS decision, you can take it from another point of
>> view: 5.15 will only have 2 or 3 bug fixing releases, and so will all
>> the LTS versions in the future. Since TQtC has commercial costumers,
>> we will internally fork
[ disclaimer: I wrote this in the middle of a headache last night, so I hope
this is understandable ]
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020, at 5:37 PM, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> Would making Qt cheaper make it more likely that the Qt Company becomes
> a sustainable business? Would giving a few licenses out
Am 29.01.20 um 09:57 schrieb Cristián Maureira-Fredes:
I really want to believe that the new startup price is the beginning
of having ad-hoc pricing for everyone, and hopefully in the future
we can also see "medium-size company prices" or
"freelancer developer licenses", but such decisions
Il 29/01/20 09:52, Cristián Maureira-Fredes ha scritto:
Currently, you can create a Qt Account with your email
and a password, when you received the email, you confirm by clicking on
the link, and then you can optionally enter your information.
First Name and Last Name are required, but then
Hi Thiago,
On 29/01/2020 04:25, Thiago Macieira wrote:
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
On 1/29/20 9:25 AM, Filippo Cucchetto wrote:
> Qt should find a good balance between licensing costs and investors.
> Taking JetBrains as an example of similar (profitable) company you can
> see that for a single developer all their tools suite costs 600 euros yearly
> decreasing to 400 after 3
On 1/29/20 8:29 AM, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
> Am 27.01.2020 um 15:34 schrieb Lars Knoll:
>> 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
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
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 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
>
>> 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
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*
)
There's been a lot of taking away and not a lot of providing. Is Qt still
useful? Sure, but the vector is pointing in the wrong direction.
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 at 9:34 AM
> From: "Lars Knoll"
> To: "Qt development mailing list"
> Subject: [Developmen
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!
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
my cause either...)
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Development On Behalf Of Lars Knoll
Sent: 27 January 2020 14:35
To: Qt development mailing list
Subject: [Development] Changes to Qt offering
Hi all,
The Qt Company has done some adjustments to the Qt will be offered in the
fu
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
1 - 100 of 191 matches
Mail list logo
