date:20200401

Hi Matthew,

I have tried to be very clear in explaining that the whole point of this email 
thread is about mixing open-source and commercial, which not a the most common 
use case. I do not know what are the questions that I have tried to avoid 
answering. Yes, there are many users of Qt who use it in many different ways. 
It is rather simple to answer for every specific case when all details are 
known, but rather hard to give a short answer that covers every possible way of 
using Qt. 

But trust me when I say that the vast majority is using either the commercial 
or open-source version. In both these cases licensing is rather 
straightforward: either follow LGPL and GPL (if you use the GPL parts), or the 
commercial license if that has been purchased. 

I know licensing in general can be a challenging topic, but I can't help 
thinking if some people are intentionally trying to twist things around. At 
least there are quite many who have not been talking about this in a friendly 
tone.

That said, I hope there are at least some recipients in the mailing list who 
consider this discussion valuable. Unless there is any new actual question, 
this is my last email to the topic. 

Yours,

Tuukka

On 1.4.2020, 23.04, "Matthew Woehlke"  wrote:

On 31/03/2020 09.46, Andy wrote:
> Even a solo developer needs to hire a lawyer before touching anything
> Qt-related.

Fortunately for the OSS community, you forgot "commercial" in that sentence.

> Once you start trying to codify all the different scenarios in your
> licensing, it becomes toxic and people will avoid it

Yup. Just in this thread, I've seen messages *from Tuukka* that said
"yes", "no", and avoided answering in various ways.

It's no wonder people are confused.

-- 
Matthew

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial developers

Hi Matthew,

Unless you are in the situation described by the person who originated this 
email thread, I am rather sure you can continue using the GPL version of 
Creator. 

The whole point of this email thread was situations where the same development 
project team (creating the same product) would like to mix commercially and 
open-source licensed Qt frameworks or tools. This is not allowed, but also not 
the most common case. Typically either commercial or open-source version of Qt 
is used, which is the way indented.  

Yours,

Tuukka

On 1.4.2020, 22.16, "Matthew Woehlke"  wrote:

On 27/03/2020 08.55, Tuukka Turunen wrote:
> Correct. All users need to have commercial license. It is not allowed for 
part of the team to use commercial and part use open-source. Even though Qt 
Creator is great, it can feel odd to pay for full Qt license and only use the 
Creator IDE. 
> 
> We have been thinking about selling Qt Creator separately, but so far no 
decisions made on this. 

Wait, *WHAT?!* AFAIK, GPL imposes no restrictions on material created
*using* GPL'd software (with possible exceptions if such use results in
materials that incorporate parts of the software used, e.g. bison/flex).

That said, I wouldn't know what sorts of crazy provisions the Qt
commercial licensing may contain... IMHO though requiring licensees to
not use a particular IDE is pretty asinine.

> On 25.3.2020, 21.09, "Interest on behalf of Vyacheslav Lanovets" 
 wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Situation.
> 
> A company has a few developers with Qt Commercial subscription who
> write applications in Qt for iOS.
> There are many other developers, who work on other projects and don't
> use Qt libraries.
> They talk to each other and sometimes even work on the same code.
> 
> Is it still possible for the developers who don't use Qt libraries in
> any way, use Qt Creator IDE for editing and debugging?
> To be on the safe side, company plans to prohibit usage of Qt Creator
> IDE for all employees.
> I reckon this is a popular solution.
> If I understand correctly, Qt even sells a special option to ban all
> company IP addresses for open-source installer.
> 
> But is it really so?
> 
> Regards,
> Vyacheslav
> ___
> 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
> 

-- 
Matthew

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] qResourceFeatureZlib() entry point not found

2020-04-01 Thread Thiago Macieira

On Wednesday, 1 April 2020 06:47:07 -03 Filippo Rusconi via Interest wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> my software program (GUI) builds/runs fine on Debian GNU/Linux, but I fail
> to run it on MinGW64. I can build it fine, but when I run it, the error
> message (in a system dialog box) is that the (mangled name that I
> c++filt'ered) qResourceFeatureZlib() entry point is not found in my
> executable program.

Zlib support is mandatory. So it's one of two things:
 a) you managed to compile Qt without zlib support. Turn it back on.
 b) you're mixing versions of rcc and QtCore. Make sure they are from the same 
build.

> I researched a bit and discovered that that function is in the Qt5Core
> library. Since I was linking againsts Qt5Widgets, I deemed un-necessary to
> also link explicitely agains Qt5Core. So I did that. But that did not
> change the error.
> 
> Can somebody help me with the understanding of what is going on ?

You forgot rule 101 of asking for help: paste the exact error message.
-- 
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

Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial developers

On 31/03/2020 16.12, Krzysztof Kawa wrote:
> This got me thinking about quite a simple case that doesn't seem so
> simple now: Lets say I make a game using open-source licensed Qt, or
> even just open-source licensed Qt Creator. After few years of
> development I decide to publish the game. It just so happens that my
> publisher has a storefront app using commercial Qt or even just
> written in Qt Creator under commercial license. To put my app in their
> store there's usually some API, config file or whatever that
> technically makes it mixing the two, even if not through Qt based
> interface. 

Are you talking about an API that *your game* will use (e.g. for IAPs)?
Or just the process of submitting your content to be distributed?

> Does that mean I can't publish my app in that store?

*You* are fine, so long as publishing doesn't prevent you from
fulfilling your [L]GPL obligations.

The store, OTOH... I have no idea. (Lucky for you that's not *your*
problem.)

-- 
Matthew
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial developers

On 31/03/2020 09.46, Andy wrote:
> Even a solo developer needs to hire a lawyer before touching anything
> Qt-related.

Fortunately for the OSS community, you forgot "commercial" in that sentence.

> Once you start trying to codify all the different scenarios in your
> licensing, it becomes toxic and people will avoid it

Yup. Just in this thread, I've seen messages *from Tuukka* that said
"yes", "no", and avoided answering in various ways.

It's no wonder people are confused.

-- 
Matthew
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial developers

2020-04-01 Thread Scott Bloom

Sorry had to laugh...

> Yup... except I'd probably use some less polite terms than "tone-deaf".
Fair point... tone-deaf can be a bit insulting..

>This sort of thing, and also the recent installer changes, continues to 
>make me think that TQtC is *trying* to commit suicide. That, or whoever is 
>making these decisions is hopelessly incompetent.
Yes, hopelessly incompetent is a much more polite thing to say...


Scott
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial developers

On 30/03/2020 13.49, Andy wrote:
> That makes no sense. Your license prevents a company from using an
> open-source tool? It says "if you license our stuff you cannot use the
> open-source tool X"?

That is, indeed, what I am hearing, and also how I would interpret the FAQ.

> This whole thread is yet another great example of where the Qt Company is
> totally tone-deaf.

Yup... except I'd probably use some less polite terms than "tone-deaf".
This sort of thing, and also the recent installer changes, continues to
make me think that TQtC is *trying* to commit suicide. That, or whoever
is making these decisions is hopelessly incompetent.

> Nobody understands your licensing. You have fewer people using Qt and
> Qt-based things because of this.

Probably.

-- 
Matthew
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt, Commercial developers

On 31/03/2020 14.16, Francis Herne wrote:
> Having looked through said document, the relevant sections seem to be:
> 
>> 1. ... “Prohibited Combination” shall mean any means to (i) use, combine, 
> incorporate, link or integrate Licensed Software with any software created 
> with or incorporating Open Source Qt, (ii) use Licensed Software for creation 
> of any software created with or incorporating Open Source Qt, or (iii) 
> incorporate or integrate Applications into a hardware device or product other 
> than a Device. ...
> 
> Can't use licensed Qt Creator to develop open-source Qt apps; ok.

That *is* what the above appears to say. It's also *beyond* asinine. YTH
should TQtC care if I buy their IDE and use it to develop OSS software?
This just strikes me as a reason to *not* buy their IDE. I fail to see
how it is in any way beneficial to TQtC.

The *intent* here is to not use the licensed Qt *libraries* to build a
product which also leverages the OSS version of Qt in any way, to avoid
people "shirking" by writing most of their code against OSS Qt and then
later bolting on a tiny proprietary bit. I won't comment whether I think
that approach makes sense, but it's at least comprehensible.

> In general, the only "clear" policy is that The Qt Company deliberately 
> obfuscates the conditions under which the GPL version can be used, to put 
> people off exercising the rights that do exist.
> 
> This goes along with the general downplaying of, and FUD about, the GPL 
> option 
> on the website, and the bizarre retrospective licensing.
> 
> It's disrespectful to the outside contributors who've built so much of Qt and 
> its ecosystem in exchange for those rights, and doesn't bode well for the 
> future of Qt in the free software community.

No argument here...

-- 
Matthew
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial developers

On 27/03/2020 08.55, Tuukka Turunen wrote:
> Correct. All users need to have commercial license. It is not allowed for 
> part of the team to use commercial and part use open-source. Even though Qt 
> Creator is great, it can feel odd to pay for full Qt license and only use the 
> Creator IDE. 
> 
> We have been thinking about selling Qt Creator separately, but so far no 
> decisions made on this. 

Wait, *WHAT?!* AFAIK, GPL imposes no restrictions on material created
*using* GPL'd software (with possible exceptions if such use results in
materials that incorporate parts of the software used, e.g. bison/flex).

That said, I wouldn't know what sorts of crazy provisions the Qt
commercial licensing may contain... IMHO though requiring licensees to
not use a particular IDE is pretty asinine.

> On 25.3.2020, 21.09, "Interest on behalf of Vyacheslav Lanovets" 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Situation.
> 
> A company has a few developers with Qt Commercial subscription who
> write applications in Qt for iOS.
> There are many other developers, who work on other projects and don't
> use Qt libraries.
> They talk to each other and sometimes even work on the same code.
> 
> Is it still possible for the developers who don't use Qt libraries in
> any way, use Qt Creator IDE for editing and debugging?
> To be on the safe side, company plans to prohibit usage of Qt Creator
> IDE for all employees.
> I reckon this is a popular solution.
> If I understand correctly, Qt even sells a special option to ban all
> company IP addresses for open-source installer.
> 
> But is it really so?
> 
> Regards,
> Vyacheslav
> ___
> 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
> 


-- 
Matthew
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] PySide2 5.14.2 signal/slots changed

2020-04-01 Thread Jérôme Godbout

A more complete example. also narrow the bug, if the parent is set to self 
before launching the object the signal no more reach it, work under 5.14.0, 
5.14.1 but not on 5.14.2. This is a show stopper for 5.14.2. I have open an 
issue:
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/PYSIDE-1255

From: Interest  On Behalf Of Jérôme Godbout
Sent: April 1, 2020 11:21 AM
To: interest@qt-project.org
Subject: [Interest] PySide2 5.14.2 signal/slots changed

Hi,
I was trying the signal/slots for a Python application, but with the new 
version I discovered that the signal is no more reaching my Qml anymore, 
reverting to 5.14.0 PySide2 fix the problem.

Python code:

from PySide2.QtCore import QObject, Signal

class BObj(QObject):
...

class AObj(QObject):
dataReceived = Signal(BObj)

def myFct(self):
toto = BObj(self)
print("before", flush=True) # print before and 
after on both version of PySide2 5.14.0 and 5.14.2
self.dataReceived.emit(toto)
print("after", flush=True)

Qml Code:

AObj
{
onDataReceived:
{
  console.log("Reach Qml"); // This print with PySide 5.14.0 
but not in 5.14.2
var b_obj = arguments[0]; // no named arguments from python, 
weird syntax lead to this
}
}

Is there any changes or this was not allowed??? or this is a bug into 5.14.2? 
(I could reproduce on Linxu and Windows. Is the signals syntax changes or 
something?

Jerome

test.tar.xz
Description: test.tar.xz
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

[Interest] PySide2 5.14.2 signal/slots changed

2020-04-01 Thread Jérôme Godbout

Hi,
I was trying the signal/slots for a Python application, but with the new 
version I discovered that the signal is no more reaching my Qml anymore, 
reverting to 5.14.0 PySide2 fix the problem.

Python code:

from PySide2.QtCore import QObject, Signal

class BObj(QObject):
...

class AObj(QObject):
dataReceived = Signal(BObj)

def myFct(self):
toto = BObj(self)
print("before", flush=True) # print before and 
after on both version of PySide2 5.14.0 and 5.14.2
self.dataReceived.emit(toto)
print("after", flush=True)

Qml Code:

AObj
{
onDataReceived:
{
  console.log("Reach Qml"); // This print with PySide 5.14.0 
but not in 5.14.2
var b_obj = arguments[0]; // no named arguments from python, 
weird syntax lead to this
}
}

Is there any changes or this was not allowed??? or this is a bug into 5.14.2? 
(I could reproduce on Linxu and Windows. Is the signals syntax changes or 
something?

Jerome
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] QtWebkit error while building Qt5.12.7 sources

2020-04-01 Thread Ramakanth Kesireddy

Can you please provide any reference of cross compiling ICU 58.x as I end
up getting one error or other in configure line?

On Tue, 31 Mar, 2020, 14:27 Konstantin Tokarev,  wrote:

>
>
> 31.03.2020, 11:54, "Ramakanth Kesireddy" :
> > Since the old compiler doesn't supports c++11, we got to use Qt WebKit
> 5.6.3 only. However, we shall move to the latest 5.12 LTS once the compiler
> is upgraded.
> >
> > So ICS 59.2 would be compatible with Qt WebKit 5.6.3?
>
> No, necessary patch wasn't backported there. Try 58.x
>
> --
> Regards,
> Konstantin
>
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial developers

Hi,

As I have said earlier in this thread it can feel odd that the restriction of 
mixing extends also to the Qt tools, even in case framework libraries are not 
used.

I want to again emphasize that this is something that does not affect 
open-source use of Qt – as long as it is not done in conjunction with a 
commercially licensed Qt.

We have been considering of separately licensing some of the tools, but no 
decisions done yet.

Yours,

Tuukka

From: tomek 
Date: Wednesday 1. April 2020 at 13.28
To: Tuukka Turunen 
Cc: Krzysztof Kawa , "interest@qt-project.org" 

Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial 
developers

Hi Tuukka,

so if the company's product is say modern car's head unit which is built from 
many, many blocks and to build one of those (UI) Qt with commercial license was 
used then hundreds or thousands of developers in the same company or many 
subcontractor companies developers are forbidden to use Qt Creator based on GPL 
license as their IDE of choice to C/C++ code development within that product 
(but for other modules not relying on Qt at all, physically stored in different 
repos/subrepos)? From the company/project management perspective there will be 
most probably many projects (per module/block) but in the end all will be 
bundled into one package which will land on the blackbox so according to your 
explanation it will be license violation, right?

Thanks,
Tomasz/

śr., 1 kwi 2020 o 07:24 Tuukka Turunen 
mailto:tuukka.turu...@qt.io>> napisał(a):
Hi,

To me your example does not sound problematic assuming that your application is 
like a typical app - a clearly different thing than the store that sells apps 
(the store sells a lot of different apps and your is in no way relevant for 
operating the store etc).

Also, for any particular real case at hand, you can ask if something is allowed 
for you or not.

Yours,

Tuukka

On 31.3.2020, 23.15, "Interest on behalf of Krzysztof Kawa" 
mailto:interest-boun...@qt-project.org> on 
behalf of krzysiek.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The key point is: The Qt Company, just like Trolltech initially and other 
companies in between, does not want mixing open-source Qt and commercial Qt.
> Reason is simple: if mixing was allowed, many companies would use it to 
pay less for their use of Qt.
> It is unfortunate that also real open-source projects may be affected in 
some cases. Majority of users are not affected in any way.

This got me thinking about quite a simple case that doesn't seem so
simple now: Lets say I make a game using open-source licensed Qt, or
even just open-source licensed Qt Creator. After few years of
development I decide to publish the game. It just so happens that my
publisher has a storefront app using commercial Qt or even just
written in Qt Creator under commercial license. To put my app in their
store there's usually some API, config file or whatever that
technically makes it mixing the two, even if not through Qt based
interface. Does that mean I can't publish my app in that store? If
that's the case then this pretty much makes Qt dead for any sort of
game development because there's no possible way to know which
publishers are gonna use what tech and under what license by the time
you ship. Same thing goes for any app distributed through external
stores I guess and I know at least few that use Qt.
___
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
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt, Commercial developers

2020-04-01 Thread Ilya Diallo

Hi,

What I get from the explanations from Tuukka is that the commercial
contract includes what amounts to legal carpet-bombing aiming to prevent
bad faith actors to use loopholes to their advantage.
The unfortunate consequence is that good faith actors can feel unsafe if
they try to read the legal terms.
There's some concerns about the definition of a "project" or "product" but
most important terms are ill-defined if you think about it:
- what does "using" means exactly ?
- what does "depends" means exactly ?
- what does "affecting" means in the context ?
- and so on

You can't escape that increasingly anything tends to depends on everything,
so the dual-licensing model is more and more complicated to get right.

The general intent of the Qt license is somewhat clear, but someone said
that the "get a lawyer" advice is FUD, and it's tempting to agree. I think
it's even worse for the QtC because a lawyer may advise to not use the
commercial license if he tries to get to the bottom of it and fails (as he
should).

Ilya

Le mer. 1 avr. 2020 à 09:04, Tuukka Turunen  a écrit :

>
> Hi,
>
> I think you are now twisting and mixing things incorrectly.
>
> For example, working in a company who has a commercial license of Qt does
> not in any way hinder contributing to Qt.
>
> Yours,
>
> Tuukka
>
> On 1.4.2020, 9.32, "Interest on behalf of Roland Hughes" <
> interest-boun...@qt-project.org on behalf of rol...@logikalsolutions.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> On 3/30/20 1:03 PM, Andy wrote:
> > That makes no sense. Your license prevents a company from using an
> > open-source tool? It says "if you license our stuff you cannot use
> the
> > open-source tool X"?
> >
> > This whole thread is yet another great example of where the Qt
> Company is
> > totally tone-deaf.
> >
> > Nobody understands your licensing. You have fewer people using Qt and
> > Qt-based things because of this.
>
> I've honestly been expecting KDE to kick Qt to the curb any day now if
> they are reading this.
>
> Medical device companies have been running screaming away from Qt over
> the past year. Many moving to Rust. Some are even moving to Zinc which
> really kind of surprised me.
>
> Some companies in other markets are abandoning embedded Linux for
> embedded DOS so they can use other GUI tools. Before you Guffaw at
> that,
> AGCO uses a lot of embedded DOS and they make an awful lot of Ag heavy
> equipment. Last I heard they were moving away from Qt as well.
>
> What is impressive is how "company" and "project" get thrown around
> interchangeably. So, if one tiny little project in GE in some remote
> location is using a commercial license, from what was stated, every
> person in every GE location around the world __must__ have a
> commercial
> Qt license to use QtCreator even if they are just using C++. I guess
> everyone has to move to Emacs, CodeLite, KDevelop, and VSCodium.
>
> https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
>
> https://codelite.org/
>
> https://www.kdevelop.org/
>
> https://vscodium.com/
>
> I suppose if they didn't want free they could pay $299 for SlickEdit.
>
> https://www.slickedit.com/
>
> or a $100/yr annual subscription to UltraEdit.
>
> Just be aware that UltraEdit like many other PC originating editors
> gets
> tabs wrong. When you set tabs to spaces and set their width to 4,
> hitting  when cursor is in first column of the line has to put
> the
> cursor in column 4, not 5 like far too many PC editors.
>
>
> https://www.logikalsolutions.com/wordpress/information-technology/most-text-editors-get-tabs-wrong/
>
> Having followed this "discussion" for a bit now I have a relevant
> question.
>
> Assuming Intel, given all of the locations it has around the globe,
> owns
> a single commercial Qt license at any one of them, by what has been
> said
> here, Thiago not only has to have a commercial license to work on Qt,
> he
> technically can't work on the OpenSource version. He has to commit his
> code to the commercial version where it may or may not ever find its
> way
> into the OpenSource version, if there ever is to be an OpenSource
> version again.
>
> Cause that's what I've been hearing in this conversation. The new new
> new new licensing "strategy" is once anyone in an organization has
> touched a commercial version they must perpetually pay forever and
> ever
> for everyone. It almost sounds like a person couldn't even leave a
> company and go work on OpenSource.
>
> I went back tot he archive.
>
> Vyacheslav Lanovets actually asked:
>
> =
>
> A company has a few developers with Qt Commercial subscription who
> write applications in Qt for iOS.
> There are many other developers, who work on other projects and don't
> use Qt libraries.
> They talk to each other and sometimes even work on the same code.

[Interest] qResourceFeatureZlib() entry point not found

2020-04-01 Thread Filippo Rusconi via Interest

Greetings, 


my software program (GUI) builds/runs fine on Debian GNU/Linux, but I fail to
run it on MinGW64. I can build it fine, but when I run it, the error message (in
a system dialog box) is that the (mangled name that I c++filt'ered)
qResourceFeatureZlib() entry point is not found in my executable program. 


I researched a bit and discovered that that function is in the Qt5Core library.
Since I was linking againsts Qt5Widgets, I deemed un-necessary to also link
explicitely agains Qt5Core. So I did that. But that did not change the error.

Can somebody help me with the understanding of what is going on ?

Many thanks in advance,

Regards
Filippo

--

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Filippo Rusconi, PhD
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁   Scientist at CNRS
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀   Debian Developer
⠈⠳⣄  http://msxpertsuite.org
  http://www.debian.org


___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt, Commercial developers

Hi,

I think you are now twisting and mixing things incorrectly.

For example, working in a company who has a commercial license of Qt does not
in any way hinder contributing to Qt.

Yours,

Tuukka

On 1.4.2020, 9.32, "Interest on behalf of Roland Hughes"

wrote:

On 3/30/20 1:03 PM, Andy wrote:
> That makes no sense. Your license prevents a company from using an
> open-source tool? It says "if you license our stuff you cannot use the
> open-source tool X"?
>
> This whole thread is yet another great example of where the Qt Company is
> totally tone-deaf.
>
> Nobody understands your licensing. You have fewer people using Qt and
> Qt-based things because of this.

I've honestly been expecting KDE to kick Qt to the curb any day now if
they are reading this.

Medical device companies have been running screaming away from Qt over
the past year. Many moving to Rust. Some are even moving to Zinc which
really kind of surprised me.

Some companies in other markets are abandoning embedded Linux for
embedded DOS so they can use other GUI tools. Before you Guffaw at that,
AGCO uses a lot of embedded DOS and they make an awful lot of Ag heavy
equipment. Last I heard they were moving away from Qt as well.

What is impressive is how "company" and "project" get thrown around
interchangeably. So, if one tiny little project in GE in some remote
location is using a commercial license, from what was stated, every
person in every GE location around the world __must__ have a commercial
Qt license to use QtCreator even if they are just using C++. I guess
everyone has to move to Emacs, CodeLite, KDevelop, and VSCodium.

https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/

https://codelite.org/

https://www.kdevelop.org/

https://vscodium.com/

I suppose if they didn't want free they could pay $299 for SlickEdit.

https://www.slickedit.com/

or a $100/yr annual subscription to UltraEdit.

Just be aware that UltraEdit like many other PC originating editors gets
tabs wrong. When you set tabs to spaces and set their width to 4,
hitting when cursor is in first column of the line has to put the
cursor in column 4, not 5 like far too many PC editors.

https://www.logikalsolutions.com/wordpress/information-technology/most-text-editors-get-tabs-wrong/

Having followed this "discussion" for a bit now I have a relevant question.

Assuming Intel, given all of the locations it has around the globe, owns
a single commercial Qt license at any one of them, by what has been said
here, Thiago not only has to have a commercial license to work on Qt, he
technically can't work on the OpenSource version. He has to commit his
code to the commercial version where it may or may not ever find its way
into the OpenSource version, if there ever is to be an OpenSource
version again.

Cause that's what I've been hearing in this conversation. The new new
new new licensing "strategy" is once anyone in an organization has
touched a commercial version they must perpetually pay forever and ever
for everyone. It almost sounds like a person couldn't even leave a
company and go work on OpenSource.

I went back tot he archive.

Vyacheslav Lanovets actually asked:

A company has a few developers with Qt Commercial subscription who
write applications in Qt for iOS.
There are many other developers, who work on other projects and don't
use Qt libraries.
They talk to each other and sometimes even work on the same code.

Is it still possible for the developers who don't use Qt libraries in
any way, use Qt Creator IDE for editing and debugging?
To be on the safe side, company plans to prohibit usage of Qt Creator
IDE for all employees.
I reckon this is a popular solution.
If I understand correctly, Qt even sells a special option to ban all
company IP addresses for open-source installer.

The question clearly states the second group just like the IDE for C++.
They aren't using Qt at all. That was the question asked.

What this conversation is really starting to sound like is "The
OpenSource version has ceased to exist."

Please clarify explicitly while I dust off my Zinc books.

https://books.google.com/books?id=cdx_nLaqMn0C=frontcover=Zinc+It!=en=1_redir=0=X=2ahUKEwidibzz8sLoAhVrUN8KHXzSBtkQ6AEwAXoECAIQAg#v=onepage=Zinc%20It!=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=4vu5LwUGT28C=PP1=Zinc+It!=en=1_redir=0=X=2ahUKEwidibzz8sLoAhVrUN8KHXzSBtkQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=onepage=Zinc%20It!=false

--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593

http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com

Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt, Commercial developers

2020-04-01 Thread Hamish Moffatt


On 31/3/20 6:09 am, Roland Hughes wrote:
Just be aware that UltraEdit like many other PC originating editors 
gets tabs wrong. When you set tabs to spaces and set their width to 4, 
hitting  when cursor is in first column of the line has to put 
the cursor in column 4, not 5 like far too many PC editors. 



That's definitely not the right behaviour if you're coding Python for 
example, which is a far more likely scenario for a modern editor than COBOL.




Hamish

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 102, Issue 34

On 3/31/20 1:21 PM, interest-requ...@qt-project.org wrote:

Note: I don’t speak in the name of my cie, but my own opinion here. Just
stating the fact that the Qt license is the main reason we often ditch Qt for
some application.

The same reason it is being ditched wholesale by lots of places. Others
have entrenched with 4.8 and will not move forward. When managers start
reviewing this license thing, they take the MC Hammer approach like your
lawyer did "Can't touch this."

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=can%27t+touch+this+official+video=canonical=videos=videos=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dq8WSdypJ4WA

Medical device work is moving/has moved to building stand alone COMM
modules which share no memory with main device nor can they write to
anything main CPU would use. All non-disk I/O devices are part of COMM
module. A single high speed serial connection with a proprietary fixed
packet messaging protocol is the only connection between main system and
COMM module.

Qt 4.8 and widgets is way more than enough for that world. The COMM
module is bare metal C code. No OS or extra features/functions, only the
tiny set that got coded.

--
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] Interest Digest, Vol 102, Issue 31



On 3/31/20 12:49 AM, interest-requ...@qt-project.org wrote:

I guess the conflicting terms are these:

“Prohibited Combination” shall mean any means to (i) use, combine, incorporate, link 
or integrate Licensed Software with any software created with or incorporating Open 
Source Qt, (ii) use Licensed Software for creation of any software created with or 
incorporating Open Source Qt, or (iii) incorporate or integrate Applications into a 
hardware device or product other than a Device."

Especially this combination: “use … Licensed Software with any software created 
with … Open Source Qt”

KDE, doxygen, Wireshark (just to name a few) are using Open Source Qt.

Can someone reflect how does it apply to that software? Can a customer use them 
to create software under the Qt commercial License terms?


I am not a lawyer and any opinion towards Licensing is my personal very 
subjective opinion.


Questions I've had as well. It seems the only solution is to never buy a 
commercial license, especially if you run KDE Neon as your primary 
development desktop.


Just how does one know if library-xyz, written in pure C++ used 
QtCreator OpenSource as the project IDE?


Is anyone working for Linus himself using QtCreator OpenSource as their 
favorite IDE? If so, by that definition you cannot use commercial Qt on 
Linux, any flavor.


I don't know if I trust this site, but . . .

https://awesomeopensource.com/projects/qt5

It claims to list 167 Open Source projects using Qt5. Some of them could 
easily be part of one's development toolbox. I'm thinking of


Sqlitestudio

Slate

Notes

Screencloud - for taking screenshots under Windows, Mac, and Linux

Embedded Ide - bare-metal ARM systems

Slacken - lightweight Qt client for Slack

A better list here

https://wiki.manjaro.org/index.php?title=List_of_Qt_Applications

FileZilla

Notepadqq

OnlyOffice

FBReader - for reading your reference ebooks

imagewriter





--
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] Fwd: Re: Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt, Commercial developers



I sent this the other day but it hasn't made it into the list yet. At 
least I haven't seen it. Forwarding because it is pertinent


 Forwarded Message 
Subject: 	Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt, 
Commercial developers

Date:   Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:09:42 -0500
From:   Roland Hughes 
To: interest@qt-project.org, asmalo...@gmail.com




On 3/30/20 1:03 PM, Andy wrote:

That makes no sense. Your license prevents a company from using an
open-source tool? It says "if you license our stuff you cannot use the
open-source tool X"?

This whole thread is yet another great example of where the Qt Company is
totally tone-deaf.

Nobody understands your licensing. You have fewer people using Qt and
Qt-based things because of this.


I've honestly been expecting KDE to kick Qt to the curb any day now if 
they are reading this.


Medical device companies have been running screaming away from Qt over 
the past year. Many moving to Rust. Some are even moving to Zinc which 
really kind of surprised me.


Some companies in other markets are abandoning embedded Linux for 
embedded DOS so they can use other GUI tools. Before you Guffaw at that, 
AGCO uses a lot of embedded DOS and they make an awful lot of Ag heavy 
equipment. Last I heard they were moving away from Qt as well.


What is impressive is how "company" and "project" get thrown around 
interchangeably. So, if one tiny little project in GE in some remote 
location is using a commercial license, from what was stated, every 
person in every GE location around the world __must__ have a commercial 
Qt license to use QtCreator even if they are just using C++. I guess 
everyone has to move to Emacs, CodeLite, KDevelop, and VSCodium.


https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/

https://codelite.org/

https://www.kdevelop.org/

https://vscodium.com/

I suppose if they didn't want free they could pay $299 for SlickEdit.

https://www.slickedit.com/

or a $100/yr annual subscription to UltraEdit.

Just be aware that UltraEdit like many other PC originating editors gets 
tabs wrong. When you set tabs to spaces and set their width to 4, 
hitting  when cursor is in first column of the line has to put the 
cursor in column 4, not 5 like far too many PC editors.


https://www.logikalsolutions.com/wordpress/information-technology/most-text-editors-get-tabs-wrong/

Having followed this "discussion" for a bit now I have a relevant question.

Assuming Intel, given all of the locations it has around the globe, owns 
a single commercial Qt license at any one of them, by what has been said 
here, Thiago not only has to have a commercial license to work on Qt, he 
technically can't work on the OpenSource version. He has to commit his 
code to the commercial version where it may or may not ever find its way 
into the OpenSource version, if there ever is to be an OpenSource 
version again.


Cause that's what I've been hearing in this conversation. The new new 
new new licensing "strategy" is once anyone in an organization has 
touched a commercial version they must perpetually pay forever and ever 
for everyone. It almost sounds like a person couldn't even leave a 
company and go work on OpenSource.


I went back tot he archive.

Vyacheslav Lanovets actually asked:

=

A company has a few developers with Qt Commercial subscription who
write applications in Qt for iOS.
There are many other developers, who work on other projects and don't
use Qt libraries.
They talk to each other and sometimes even work on the same code.

Is it still possible for the developers who don't use Qt libraries in
any way, use Qt Creator IDE for editing and debugging?
To be on the safe side, company plans to prohibit usage of Qt Creator
IDE for all employees.
I reckon this is a popular solution.
If I understand correctly, Qt even sells a special option to ban all
company IP addresses for open-source installer.

=

The question clearly states the second group just like the IDE for C++. 
They aren't using Qt at all. That was the question asked.


What this conversation is really starting to sound like is "The 
OpenSource version has ceased to exist."


Please clarify explicitly while I dust off my Zinc books.

https://books.google.com/books?id=cdx_nLaqMn0C=frontcover=Zinc+It!=en=1_redir=0=X=2ahUKEwidibzz8sLoAhVrUN8KHXzSBtkQ6AEwAXoECAIQAg#v=onepage=Zinc%20It!=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=4vu5LwUGT28C=PP1=Zinc+It!=en=1_redir=0=X=2ahUKEwidibzz8sLoAhVrUN8KHXzSBtkQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=onepage=Zinc%20It!=false

--
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] qt-everywhere 5.14.1 build error under MSYS2


All,

Man, an entire day compiling from source.

./configure -opensource -confirm-license -release -skip qtwebengine 
-opengl desktop -qt-sqlite -qt-zlib -qt-libjpeg -qt-libpng -qt-freetype 
-qt-pcre -qt-harfbuzz -nomake examples -nomake tests -prefix 
/usr/local/qt-5-14-1 -platform win32-g++ -silent


mingw32-make -j 4

make was clean or at least didn't abend.

 mingw32-make install

Looks like it is back to building whatever you skipped.

moc qgeocoordinate.h
compiling .moc/moc_qgeocoordinate.cpp
moc qgeopositioninfosource.h
compiling .moc/moc_qgeopositioninfosource.cpp
moc qgeosatelliteinfosource.h
compiling .moc/moc_qgeosatelliteinfosource.cpp
moc qnmeapositioninfosource.h
compiling .moc/moc_qnmeapositioninfosource.cpp
moc qgeopolygon.h
compiling .moc/moc_qgeopolygon.cpp
moc qgeopath.h
compiling .moc/moc_qgeopath.cpp
moc qnmeapositioninfosource_p.h
compiling .moc/moc_qnmeapositioninfosource_p.cpp
moc qgeopath_p.h
compiling .moc/moc_qgeopath_p.cpp
moc qgeopolygon_p.h
compiling .moc/moc_qgeopolygon_p.cpp
moc qgeocoordinateobject_p.h
compiling .moc/moc_qgeocoordinateobject_p.cpp
windres -i Qt5Positioning_resource.rc -o 
.obj/Qt5Positioning_resource_res.o --include-dir=. -DUNICODE -D_UNICODE 
-DWIN32 -DMINGW_HAS_SECURE_API=1 -DWINVER=0x0601 -D_WIN32_WINNT=0x0601 
-DQT_NO_LINKED_LIST -DQT_NO_JAVA_STYLE_ITERATORS -DQT_NO_LINKED_LIST 
-DQT_NO_NARROWING_CONVERSIONS_IN_CONNECT -DQT_BUILD_POSITIONING_LIB 
-DQT_BUILDING_QT -D_CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS -D_USE_MATH_DEFINES 
-DQT_NO_CAST_TO_ASCII -DQT_ASCII_CAST_WARNINGS -DQT_MOC_COMPAT 
-DQT_USE_QSTRINGBUILDER -DQT_DEPRECATED_WARNINGS 
-DQT_DISABLE_DEPRECATED_BEFORE=0x040800 
-DQT_DEPRECATED_WARNINGS_SINCE=0x06 -DQT_NO_EXCEPTIONS -DQT_NO_DEBUG 
-DQT_CORE_LIB

linking ../../lib/Qt5Positioning.dll
g++.exe: error: 
G:/qt-everywhere-src-5.14.1/qtlocation/lib/libclip2tri.a: No such file 
or directory
g++.exe: error: 
G:/qt-everywhere-src-5.14.1/qtlocation/lib/libpoly2tri.a: No such file 
or directory
g++.exe: error: G:/qt-everywhere-src-5.14.1/qtlocation/lib/libclipper.a: 
No such file or directory

mingw32-make[3]: *** [Makefile:201: ../../lib/Qt5Positioning.dll] Error 1
mingw32-make[3]: Leaving directory 
'G:/qt-everywhere-src-5.14.1/qtlocation/src/positioning'
mingw32-make[2]: *** [Makefile:145: sub-positioning-install_subtargets] 
Error 2
mingw32-make[2]: Leaving directory 
'G:/qt-everywhere-src-5.14.1/qtlocation/src'

mingw32-make[1]: *** [Makefile:64: sub-src-install_subtargets] Error 2
mingw32-make[1]: Leaving directory 'G:/qt-everywhere-src-5.14.1/qtlocation'
mingw32-make: *** [Makefile:830: module-qtlocation-install_subtargets] 
Error 2


Is there a way around this issue to make install complete? I don't need 
location or any of the stuff I skipped. I just need to compile one 
KeyEventExample program so I can finish filing a bug report with 
GnuEmacs. Volunteered to test this under Windows and not just linux.



--
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] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt, Commercial developers

On 3/30/20 1:03 PM, Andy wrote:

That makes no sense. Your license prevents a company from using an
open-source tool? It says "if you license our stuff you cannot use the
open-source tool X"?

This whole thread is yet another great example of where the Qt Company is
totally tone-deaf.

Nobody understands your licensing. You have fewer people using Qt and
Qt-based things because of this.

I've honestly been expecting KDE to kick Qt to the curb any day now if
they are reading this.

Medical device companies have been running screaming away from Qt over
the past year. Many moving to Rust. Some are even moving to Zinc which
really kind of surprised me.

https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/

https://codelite.org/

https://www.kdevelop.org/

https://vscodium.com/

I suppose if they didn't want free they could pay $299 for SlickEdit.

https://www.slickedit.com/

or a $100/yr annual subscription to UltraEdit.

https://www.logikalsolutions.com/wordpress/information-technology/most-text-editors-get-tabs-wrong/

Having followed this "discussion" for a bit now I have a relevant question.

I went back tot he archive.

Vyacheslav Lanovets actually asked:

The question clearly states the second group just like the IDE for C++.
They aren't using Qt at all. That was the question asked.

What this conversation is really starting to sound like is "The
OpenSource version has ceased to exist."

Please clarify explicitly while I dust off my Zinc books.

https://books.google.com/books?id=cdx_nLaqMn0C=frontcover=Zinc+It!=en=1_redir=0=X=2ahUKEwidibzz8sLoAhVrUN8KHXzSBtkQ6AEwAXoECAIQAg#v=onepage=Zinc%20It!=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=4vu5LwUGT28C=PP1=Zinc+It!=en=1_redir=0=X=2ahUKEwidibzz8sLoAhVrUN8KHXzSBtkQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=onepage=Zinc%20It!=false

--
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] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt, Commercial developers