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

[Bernhard Lindner]

Hi Tuukaa!

> TTT: This part is difficult to generally answer, as it depends how these are 
> used and
> what these are used for. Intention of the mixing restriction is to prevent 
> cases where
> someone (e.g. a company) uses the open-source version of Qt in cases where 
> they should
> use commercial version. Typical example of this is a case where only part of 
> the
> developers using Qt together would have a commercial license. We are aware of 
> the fact
> that the way how it is written is such that it might extend further than the 
> primary
> intention. This is a topic that we do not currently have a proper solution 
> for. 

Then you should find a solution. This puts customers / developers / users in 
the situation
that they depend on the goodwill of a for-profit corporation. However, there is 
no good
will in a profit-making business.

It must be perfectly clear that development projects are not affected by the 
fundamental
use of third-party Qt-based applications.

I probably will not use Qt for new projects and I cannot recommend it (but I 
have to add
that this decision is also driven by the fact that the technical priorities in 
the Qt
project have not been in line with my priorities for a few years) .

-- 
Best Regards,
Bernhard Lindner

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

Re: [Interest] PySide2 5.14.2 signal/slots changed

[Jérôme Godbout]

Just a follow up, the bug have been changed to P1 critical and reproduced and 
on some other use case too. Just heads up, if anybody is using pyside, you 
might want to hold before going to 5.14.2 until this get fix. 
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/PYSIDE-1255


From: Jérôme Godbout 
Sent: April 1, 2020 11:58 AM
To: Jérôme Godbout ; interest@qt-project.org
Subject: RE: PySide2 5.14.2 signal/slots changed

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 
mailto:interest-boun...@qt-project.org>> 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
___
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

[Tuukka Turunen]

Hi Bernhard,

See answers inline below.

Yours,

Tuukka

On 2.4.2020, 12.56, "Bernhard Lindner"  wrote:

Hello Tuukka,

maybe I missed something. Did you answer the following most critical 
question brought up
by Juergen Bocklage-Ryannel and others? From Juergens E-Mail:

> > 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?

What about this?

TTT: This part is difficult to generally answer, as it depends how these are 
used and what these are used for. Intention of the mixing restriction is to 
prevent cases where someone (e.g. a company) uses the open-source version of Qt 
in cases where they should use commercial version. Typical example of this is a 
case where only part of the developers using Qt together would have a 
commercial license. We are aware of the fact that the way how it is written is 
such that it might extend further than the primary intention. This is a topic 
that we do not currently have a proper solution for. 

> I know licensing in general can be a challenging topic, 

Non-technical terms like "use", "combine", "integrate" and "incorporate" 
are a lawyer's
paradise and make me sit up and take notice. If you want to make things less
'challenging', use techncial terms. Otherwise complaints and distrust will 
never end.

TTT: I am sorry if the terms that I have used are not clear enough. I have 
tried to express also that for actual legally binding text, one should read the 
license agreement. That said, the baseline should be quite clear: restrictions 
on mixing commercial and open-source are only relevant for those who use Qt 
under both of these. If someone is using only the open-source Qt, LGPL and GPL 
are the main licenses to understand. 

> 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.

No matter if you are wrong or right... if you are writing in behalf of a 
company, such
generalized blames are a cardinal error. If you think a certain person uses 
inadequate
words, criticize directly.

TTT: When discussing in the mailing lists we should follow the code of conduct: 
https://code.qt.io/cgit/meta/quips.git/tree/quip-0012-Code-of-Conduct.rst. I 
consider myself having quite thick skin, but in general when the tone of 
discussions in the mailing lists becomes negative or hostile, it starts to 
prevent people from responding. 

> 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. 

See above.

-- 
Best Regards,
Bernhard Lindner



___
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

[Bernhard Lindner]

Hello Tuukka,

maybe I missed something. Did you answer the following most critical question 
brought up
by Juergen Bocklage-Ryannel and others? From Juergens E-Mail:

> > 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?

What about this?

> I know licensing in general can be a challenging topic, 

Non-technical terms like "use", "combine", "integrate" and "incorporate" are a 
lawyer's
paradise and make me sit up and take notice. If you want to make things less
'challenging', use techncial terms. Otherwise complaints and distrust will 
never end.

> 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.

No matter if you are wrong or right... if you are writing in behalf of a 
company, such
generalized blames are a cardinal error. If you think a certain person uses 
inadequate
words, criticize directly.

> 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. 

See above.

-- 
Best Regards,
Bernhard Lindner

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