Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread Tuukka Turunen

“This is wrong to say that the only alternative to Commercial + GPLv3 is 
Commercial only.”

I did not say the _only_ alternative. Some new things are LGPL exactly to grow 
the user base. Qt for Python being one of such.

Yours,

Tuukka

From: Benjamin TERRIER 
Date: Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 22.18
To: Tuukka Turunen 
Cc: qt qt 
Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy



Le mer. 14 août 2019 à 20:36, Tuukka Turunen 
mailto:tuukka.turu...@qt.io>> a écrit :

Hi,

Qt’s approach to open-source is publicly described, but perhaps a bit hidden, 
check for example:

· Section 3 of https://www.qt.io/faq/

· https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Project_Open_Governance

· https://www.qt.io/licensing/

These pages are just presenting the current licensing options.
They do not cover how The Qt Company view the licensing of future Qt modules.

We have been releasing new add-on modules under GPLv3 and commercial licenses 
with intention of growing the adoption of commercial license for those making 
closed-source applications with Qt. Alternative for using GPLv3 and commercial 
would be to only offer these add-ons separately under a commercial license, 
which would mean not even those who are ok with GPLv3 license could use these 
add-ons. Some of such components do exist, but most of our code is available 
under an open-source license as well.

This is wrong to say that the only alternative to Commercial + GPLv3 is 
Commercial only.
The new add-ons modules could be provided as GPLv3 + GPLv2 + LGPLv3.
I understand the will to grow "the adoption of commercial license", but I 
believe that some modules which have a lot of alternatives available could be 
licensed also under GPLv2 and/or LPGLv3 without going against "the adoption of 
commercial license".
Also having more module on LGPL can grow the Qt community leading to indirect 
sales of the commercial license.

For instance when I work on GPLv3 projects I can use all Qt add-ons, but when I 
work on GPLv2 or LGPLv3 project I cannot use the most recent Qt modules.
Which means that I have to find an alternative anyway. In the end I do not use 
these Qt add-ons, even for the GPLv3 projects as I have an alternative ready.

At the same time we have developed a lot of new functionality, done a lot of 
improvements, and fixed a lot of bugs in functionality available also with LGPL 
license. This is a big investment, which directly benefits all Qt users whether 
they distribute their applications under LGPL, GPL or commercial license. Just 
look at the amount of new and changed code and you can see that the LGPLv3 
parts are clearly not some legacy functionality, but very actively developed 
areas of Qt.

I am not denying that.
It is just that all the novelties are GPLv3 only and I think it should be made 
clear to the community that new LGPL modules are not to be expected.

BR

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


Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 14:36:18 PDT Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> Le mer. 14 août 2019 à 22:05, Thiago Macieira  a
> écrit :
> > On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 12:17:44 PDT Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> > > The new add-ons modules could be provided as GPLv3 + GPLv2 + LGPLv3.
> > 
> > Just a nitpick: there's no need to have GPL-3.0 and LGPL-3.0 at the same
> > time.
> > So the combinations are GPL-2.0+LGPL-3.0 and GPL-2.0+GPL-3.0.
> 
> You are right.
> However; the KDE agreement explicitly states that Qt add-ons must be
> available under GPLv3.
> So I am wondering if there could be issues with licensing under LGPLv3 but
> not under GPLv3, even if for KDE it is equivalent.

LGPL-3.0 is the GPL-3.0 plus an exception, so it counts.

I haven't read the agreement in years, but last I checked it didn't specify 
which licence, only that it had to be open source. But I may be remembering 
incorrectly.

> > I don't know if there's anything that is GPL-3.0 (without 2.0). There may
> > be.
> 
> All recent and upcoming modules, except Qt 3D, are GPLv3, but not GPLv2.

I stand corrected. Thanks (and to Peppe).

> The reason I started this thread is that I needed an http server for a Qt
> project under GPLv2,
> I started to play with the QHttpServer (still work in progress, but working
> nice) until I realized
> I would not be able to use it because it is GPLv3 only.

I understand. This is the case when you have GPL-2.0 only code that you need 
to use. Even 12 years after GPL-3.0 there's still a lot of GPL-2.0 only out 
there.

I wonder if there's a way to allow the GPL-2.0 & GPL-3.0 combination work, 
without allowing the reason that GPL-3.0 was chosen in the first place 
(bypassing the TiVo clause). Probably not, because that and the Patent clause 
are the reason why 2.0 and 3.0 are incompatible in the first place.

-- 
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


[Interest] QWidget render to different size

2019-08-14 Thread Israel Brewster
When calling QWidget->render() (or the like), is there a way to get it to 
render at a different size? I have a widget that I am trying to capture to a 
png file, but I let the user decide what dimensions they want it to be saved 
at. I can easily make a QPixmap of desired size, but when I call render() on my 
widget, it just renders into a portion of the pixmap (if the pixmap is larger 
than the widget) or cuts off a portion (if the pixmap is smaller). Scaling the 
pixmap after rendering isn’t a good option, since aside from the loss of 
quality, it would scale *everything* in the pixmap, whereas changing the size 
of the QWidget actually results in some items moving and other scaling (much 
more complex than just make everything twice as big. Fonts, for example, should 
remain the same size).

I can resize the widget (by calling setFixedSize()) prior to calling render, 
which works, but that results in a visual glitch. Is there some better way to 
render the widget at a specific size? 
---
Israel Brewster
Software Engineer
Alaska Volcano Observatory 
Geophysical Institute - UAF 
2156 Koyukuk Drive 
Fairbanks AK 99775-7320
Work: 907-474-5172
cell:  907-328-9145

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


Re: [Interest] Overriding list properties in QML at initialisation

2019-08-14 Thread Unai IRIGOYEN
Ulf,
I reported the bug here: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-77529

I will try to propose a fix which has no side effect on Qt3D.

Best regards,

Unai

Le mer. 14 août 2019 à 11:25, Ulf Hermann  a écrit :

> Hello,
>
> > If I create a class with a QQmlListProperty and then initialise it with
> > an array in some QML file, then subclass the QML type in a second QML
> > file and try to override the array there, when creating an instance of
> > the child class, the list contains the arrays concatenated instead of
> > the overriding array.
>
> That's the expected behavior of the default property, e.g. children in
> QQuickItem. Arguably, it should not extend to explicitly setting any
> other list properties.
>
> > In the following example, I would expect the list to contain 2 elements
> > instead of 5. What are your thoughts? Should I fill a bug report and try
> > to provide a fix?
>
> Yes, that would be nice. Keep in mind that the default property should
> still behave the old way, but only if you actually use it as default
> property. The details can be discussed in the report, though.
>
> best regards,
> Ulf
> ___
> 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] Overriding list properties in QML at initialisation

2019-08-14 Thread Unai IRIGOYEN
Hi Giuseppe,
When you say the QML APIs for Qt3D depend on this behaviour, you are
talking about appending to the default property right? Or are the APIs
depending in the fact that every QQmlListProperty has its contents
concatenated (I can't recall an example where this could be used)?

Best regards,

Unai

Le mer. 14 août 2019 à 18:23, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest <
interest@qt-project.org> a écrit :

> Il 14/08/19 11:23, Ulf Hermann ha scritto:
> >> In the following example, I would expect the list to contain 2 elements
> >> instead of 5. What are your thoughts? Should I fill a bug report and try
> >> to provide a fix?
> > Yes, that would be nice. Keep in mind that the default property should
> > still behave the old way, but only if you actually use it as default
> > property. The details can be discussed in the report, though.
>
> This behaviour cannot be changed in a source-compatible way, so it's a
> no-go, unless we also add additional C++/QML syntax for opting in to the
> new behaviour. E.g. the QML APIs for Qt3D massively depend on this.
>
> My 2 c,
> --
> Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
> KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
> Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
> KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
>
> ___
> 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 free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread Benjamin TERRIER
Le mer. 14 août 2019 à 22:05, Thiago Macieira  a
écrit :

> On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 12:17:44 PDT Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> > The new add-ons modules could be provided as GPLv3 + GPLv2 + LGPLv3.
>
> Just a nitpick: there's no need to have GPL-3.0 and LGPL-3.0 at the same
> time.
> So the combinations are GPL-2.0+LGPL-3.0 and GPL-2.0+GPL-3.0.
>

You are right.
However; the KDE agreement explicitly states that Qt add-ons must be
available under GPLv3.
So I am wondering if there could be issues with licensing under LGPLv3 but
not under GPLv3, even if for KDE it is equivalent.


> I don't know if there's anything that is GPL-3.0 (without 2.0). There may
> be.
>

All recent and upcoming modules, except Qt 3D, are GPLv3, but not GPLv2.
The reason I started this thread is that I needed an http server for a Qt
project under GPLv2,
I started to play with the QHttpServer (still work in progress, but working
nice) until I realized
I would not be able to use it because it is GPLv3 only.

BR

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


Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest

Il 14/08/19 22:05, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:

I don't know if there's anything that is GPL-3.0 (without 2.0). There may be.


Quick, incomplete list, from the back of my head:

* QtVirtualKeyboard
* The WebGL QPA plugin
* The WebAssembly QPA plugin
* QtCharts

are all GPL3 (not 2).

My 2 c,

--
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts



smime.p7s
Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest


[Interest] Two different layouts?

2019-08-14 Thread John Weeks
I have a moderately complex window (more than 50 QWidget- and QLayout-derived 
components). I have decided that it would be nice to have two versions: a 
vertical layout and a horizontal layout. But it's not just a matter of 
QVBoxLayout vs QHBoxLayout.

I have developed a new .ui file with the vertical layout and the appropriate 
rearrangement of the widgets. All the widgets are the same, with the same 
names. The QLayout-derived items are different, but my code doesn't need to 
access them.

It would be great if I could instantiate one or the other of these layouts at 
run-time and get back a pointer (or something?) that I could use instead of the 
usual ui-> pointer. The members that I need to reference all have the same 
names in the two .ui files. Seems like there should be a C++ template way to do 
this, but I'm not as clever with that kind of stuff as I might be.

Has anyone developed a solution to this? Or do I need to make a wrapper class 
that has an accessor function for each of the widgets? That would be a pain to 
implement, and a source of bugs in the future when I change the layouts.

Any ideas greatly appreciated.

-John Weeks

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


Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread Scott Bloom
Same here.. Used to be commercial with a previous company.

Couldn’t justify the rates for commercial licenses...  And could never justify 
the "back license" fee

Scott
-Original Message-
From: Interest  On Behalf Of David M. Cotter
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 1:42 PM
To: John Weeks 
Cc: Interest 
Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy

i’m in a similar boat. i’m sure there are others who are NOT on this list who 
are also in the same boat.

> On Aug 14, 2019, at 1:22 PM, John Weeks  wrote:
> 
> We are a small company selling a very large and complex application which is 
> now based on Qt open source. At the time we first considered porting to Qt 
> (version 4.3?) the license was very expensive for small company (six 
> programmers) and the evaluation period simply wasn't adequate to deciding if 
> it was the right way to go. So we went open-source when it became available 
> when Nokia took over.
> 
> Since then, we have wished that we had a commercial license in order to get a 
> bit more traction on some bugs. The Qt Company wanted us to pay for all the  
> licensing that had accrued since we started using the LGPL version. That 
> up-front cost is prohibitive, so we haven't done it.
> 
> Perhaps, if you are trying to nudge folks toward commercial licensing, you 
> could provide a path that isn't so expensive. Or maybe you have? We haven't 
> bothered to look into it lately.
> 
> -John
> 
> ___
> 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 free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread David M. Cotter
i’m in a similar boat. i’m sure there are others who are NOT on this list who 
are also in the same boat.

> On Aug 14, 2019, at 1:22 PM, John Weeks  wrote:
> 
> We are a small company selling a very large and complex application which is 
> now based on Qt open source. At the time we first considered porting to Qt 
> (version 4.3?) the license was very expensive for small company (six 
> programmers) and the evaluation period simply wasn't adequate to deciding if 
> it was the right way to go. So we went open-source when it became available 
> when Nokia took over.
> 
> Since then, we have wished that we had a commercial license in order to get a 
> bit more traction on some bugs. The Qt Company wanted us to pay for all the  
> licensing that had accrued since we started using the LGPL version. That 
> up-front cost is prohibitive, so we haven't done it.
> 
> Perhaps, if you are trying to nudge folks toward commercial licensing, you 
> could provide a path that isn't so expensive. Or maybe you have? We haven't 
> bothered to look into it lately.
> 
> -John
> 
> ___
> 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 free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 13:18:12 PDT André Pönitz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:57:27PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 12:09:02 PDT Roland Hughes wrote:
> > > If you do not need the latest bells and whistles, drop back to Qt 4.8
> > 
> > No, don't. That is not receiving security fixes.
> 
> To make this a valid line of reasoning you would need to provide
> an overview on what kind on issues have been found and fixed, what
> issues have been introduced, found and fixed, and estimates on
> what kind of issues have not been found so far, and perhaps even
> on the impact those issues have on typical usage patterns.

We get a division by zero. So I can claim 100% of the issues found weren't 
fixed and be correct :-)

More seriously, the fact that no one is even checking to see if there are or 
have been any issues is sufficient reason to declare insecure.

Do not use insecure software.

Stop using Qt 4.8 right now.
Stop using Python2 by the end of the year.
Stop using OpenSSL 1.0 by the end of year.

PS: Qt 5.12 will switch to OpenSSL 1.1 in the binary builds.

-- 
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 free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread John Weeks
We are a small company selling a very large and complex application which is 
now based on Qt open source. At the time we first considered porting to Qt 
(version 4.3?) the license was very expensive for small company (six 
programmers) and the evaluation period simply wasn't adequate to deciding if it 
was the right way to go. So we went open-source when it became available when 
Nokia took over.

Since then, we have wished that we had a commercial license in order to get a 
bit more traction on some bugs. The Qt Company wanted us to pay for all the  
licensing that had accrued since we started using the LGPL version. That 
up-front cost is prohibitive, so we haven't done it.

Perhaps, if you are trying to nudge folks toward commercial licensing, you 
could provide a path that isn't so expensive. Or maybe you have? We haven't 
bothered to look into it lately.

-John

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


Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread André Pönitz
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:57:27PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 12:09:02 PDT Roland Hughes wrote:
> > If you do not need the latest bells and whistles, drop back to Qt 4.8
> 
> No, don't. That is not receiving security fixes.

To make this a valid line of reasoning you would need to provide
an overview on what kind on issues have been found and fixed, what
issues have been introduced, found and fixed, and estimates on
what kind of issues have not been found so far, and perhaps even
on the impact those issues have on typical usage patterns.

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


Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 12:17:44 PDT Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> The new add-ons modules could be provided as GPLv3 + GPLv2 + LGPLv3.

Just a nitpick: there's no need to have GPL-3.0 and LGPL-3.0 at the same time. 
So the combinations are GPL-2.0+LGPL-3.0 and GPL-2.0+GPL-3.0.

I don't know if there's anything that is GPL-3.0 (without 2.0). There may be.

There may also be some old code that is LGPL-2.1 because it was lacking an 
upgrade path. Probably the web engines.

-- 
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 free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 12:09:02 PDT Roland Hughes wrote:
> If you do not need the latest bells and whistles, drop back to Qt 4.8

No, don't. That is not receiving security fixes.

-- 
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 free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread Benjamin TERRIER
Le mer. 14 août 2019 à 20:36, Tuukka Turunen  a
écrit :

>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Qt’s approach to open-source is publicly described, but perhaps a bit
> hidden, check for example:
>
>- Section 3 of https://www.qt.io/faq/
>- https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Project_Open_Governance
>- https://www.qt.io/licensing/
>
>
These pages are just presenting the current licensing options.
They do not cover how The Qt Company view the licensing of future Qt
modules.


> We have been releasing new add-on modules under GPLv3 and commercial
> licenses with intention of growing the adoption of commercial license for
> those making closed-source applications with Qt. Alternative for using
> GPLv3 and commercial would be to only offer these add-ons separately under
> a commercial license, which would mean not even those who are ok with GPLv3
> license could use these add-ons. Some of such components do exist, but most
> of our code is available under an open-source license as well.
>
>
This is wrong to say that the only alternative to Commercial + GPLv3 is
Commercial only.
The new add-ons modules could be provided as GPLv3 + GPLv2 + LGPLv3.
I understand the will to grow "the adoption of commercial license", but I
believe that some modules which have a lot of alternatives available could
be licensed also under GPLv2 and/or LPGLv3 without going against "the
adoption of commercial license".
Also having more module on LGPL can grow the Qt community leading to
indirect sales of the commercial license.

For instance when I work on GPLv3 projects I can use all Qt add-ons, but
when I work on GPLv2 or LGPLv3 project I cannot use the most recent Qt
modules.
Which means that I have to find an alternative anyway. In the end I do not
use these Qt add-ons, even for the GPLv3 projects as I have an alternative
ready.

At the same time we have developed a lot of new functionality, done a lot
> of improvements, and fixed a lot of bugs in functionality available also
> with LGPL license. This is a big investment, which directly benefits all Qt
> users whether they distribute their applications under LGPL, GPL or
> commercial license. Just look at the amount of new and changed code and you
> can see that the LGPLv3 parts are clearly not some legacy functionality,
> but very actively developed areas of Qt.
>
>
I am not denying that.
It is just that all the novelties are GPLv3 only and I think it should be
made clear to the community that new LGPL modules are not to be expected.

BR

Benjamin

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


Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread Roland Hughes

Not so unusual given the license Roulette which was going on.

On 8/14/19 1:36 PM, interest-requ...@qt-project.org wrote:

Sorry but I'll ask the obvious question: you bet your entire business
without paying for a license?

Have I misunderstood you?


--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593  (cell)
http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com

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


Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread Roland Hughes

If you do not need the latest bells and whistles, drop back to Qt 4.8

https://doc.qt.io/archives/qt-4.8/opensourceedition.html

That version is rather prominent in the medical device world, because of 
the issues you bring up here.


On 8/14/19 1:36 PM, David M. Cotter wrote:

+1 on this

i am in the process of porting my legacy project to Qt and am afraid that i’ve 
made the wrong choice.  i’m just one guy and i bet my whole business on the 
availability of what  i need from Qt under LGPL

i’m already using a third party HTTP server so i’m not affected by this but 
it’s a worrying sign. I too agree that the HTTP server really should be LGPL.

What’s going to happen? It’s taken me over a year’s worth of work to get this 
far with Qt and i’m only half done. did i make the wrong choice?

-dave


--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593  (cell)
http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com

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


Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread Tuukka Turunen

Hi,

Qt’s approach to open-source is publicly described, but perhaps a bit hidden, 
check for example:

  *   Section 3 of https://www.qt.io/faq/
  *   https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Project_Open_Governance
  *   https://www.qt.io/licensing/

We have been releasing new add-on modules under GPLv3 and commercial licenses 
with intention of growing the adoption of commercial license for those making 
closed-source applications with Qt. Alternative for using GPLv3 and commercial 
would be to only offer these add-ons separately under a commercial license, 
which would mean not even those who are ok with GPLv3 license could use these 
add-ons. Some of such components do exist, but most of our code is available 
under an open-source license as well.

At the same time we have developed a lot of new functionality, done a lot of 
improvements, and fixed a lot of bugs in functionality available also with LGPL 
license. This is a big investment, which directly benefits all Qt users whether 
they distribute their applications under LGPL, GPL or commercial license. Just 
look at the amount of new and changed code and you can see that the LGPLv3 
parts are clearly not some legacy functionality, but very actively developed 
areas of Qt.

Yours,

Tuukka


From: Interest  on behalf of Benjamin TERRIER 

Date: Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 19.21
To: qt qt 
Subject: [Interest] Qt free software policy

Hi everyone,

Since we are talking about the future of Qt these days, I would like
to know The Qt Company free software policy with Qt.

Today, most of Qt modules are released under 3 free software licenses: LGPLv3,
GPLv2 and GPLv3. Some modules are released only under GPLv3.
If my memory is good, these GPLv3-only modules are the ones which used to
be commercial-only modules (like Qt Charts).

However, it seems to me that most, if not all (except Qt 3D), new Qt modules
are now being released only under GPLv3:
 - Network Auth
 - WebGL
 - WASM
 - Http Server
 - Lottie
 - Quick 3D
 - MQTT

I understand that The Qt Company is only obligated to release new modules
under GPLv3 (because of the KDE agreement).
I understand also that The Qt Company business model is selling Qt licenses
and has no direct financial interests in releasing Qt under any other license.

So I can understand that some modules, in particular those valuable for wealthy 
industrial companies,
are only released under GPLv3.
However, for some modules like HttpServer, it seems to be an odd choice. There 
are plenty
alternatives available under LGPL or more permissive licenses, so I do not see 
what
would be the loss of releasing it under LGPLv3.

Also the fact that those modules are GPLv3 only is a problem when developing 
with other
components that are GPLv2 only (and not GPLv2+).

So I would like that someone could officially confirm if all new modules will be
released under GPLv3 only. Or if it is something that is decided on a per module
basis.

I believe that Qt users and contributors deserve to know what it The Qt Company
view on this.
Using an LGPLv3 framework is not the same thing as using a GPLv3 framework
where some historical parts are available under LGPLv3 and all new features 
will be GPLv3 only.

BR,

Benjamin


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


Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread Konstantin Tokarev


14.08.2019, 21:04, "David M. Cotter" :
>i’m ALLOWED to use the free version, right? or did i misunderstand how LGPL 
>works?

You are allowed to use it if you comply with LGPL terms.

In case new modules are licensed as GPL-only and you don't want/can't comply 
with GPL,
you won't be allowed to use that new modules (note that there are certain cases 
when
complying with GPL does not require you to releasing your code, for example if 
your
application runs on the server controlled by you and users interact with it 
only by means
of network connection).

Even in the case (very unlikely) that existing Qt modules are relicensed to 
GPL-only, you
can continue using previous version under LGPL terms, or make a fork.


>
>> On Aug 14, 2019, at 10:11 AM, Vadim Peretokin  wrote:
>>
>> Sorry but I'll ask the obvious question: you bet your entire business 
>> without paying for a license?
>>
>> Have I misunderstood you?
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Aug. 2019, 7:01 pm David M. Cotter,  wrote:
>>> +1 on this
>>>
>>> i am in the process of porting my legacy project to Qt and am afraid that 
>>> i’ve made the wrong choice.  i’m just one guy and i bet my whole business 
>>> on the availability of what  i need from Qt under LGPL
>>>
>>> i’m already using a third party HTTP server so i’m not affected by this but 
>>> it’s a worrying sign. I too agree that the HTTP server really should be 
>>> LGPL.
>>>
>>> What’s going to happen? It’s taken me over a year’s worth of work to get 
>>> this far with Qt and i’m only half done. did i make the wrong choice?
>>>
>>> -dave
>>>
 On Aug 14, 2019, at 9:18 AM, Benjamin TERRIER  wrote:

 Hi everyone,

 Since we are talking about the future of Qt these days, I would like
 to know The Qt Company free software policy with Qt.

 Today, most of Qt modules are released under 3 free software licenses: 
 LGPLv3,
 GPLv2 and GPLv3. Some modules are released only under GPLv3.
 If my memory is good, these GPLv3-only modules are the ones which used to
 be commercial-only modules (like Qt Charts).

 However, it seems to me that most, if not all (except Qt 3D), new Qt 
 modules
 are now being released only under GPLv3:
  - Network Auth
  - WebGL
  - WASM
  - Http Server
  - Lottie
  - Quick 3D
  - MQTT

 I understand that The Qt Company is only obligated to release new modules
 under GPLv3 (because of the KDE agreement).
 I understand also that The Qt Company business model is selling Qt licenses
 and has no direct financial interests in releasing Qt under any other 
 license.

 So I can understand that some modules, in particular those valuable for 
 wealthy industrial companies,
 are only released under GPLv3.
 However, for some modules like HttpServer, it seems to be an odd choice. 
 There are plenty
 alternatives available under LGPL or more permissive licenses, so I do not 
 see what
 would be the loss of releasing it under LGPLv3.

 Also the fact that those modules are GPLv3 only is a problem when 
 developing with other
 components that are GPLv2 only (and not GPLv2+).

 So I would like that someone could officially confirm if all new modules 
 will be
 released under GPLv3 only. Or if it is something that is decided on a per 
 module
 basis.

 I believe that Qt users and contributors deserve to know what it The Qt 
 Company
 view on this.
 Using an LGPLv3 framework is not the same thing as using a GPLv3 framework
 where some historical parts are available under LGPLv3 and all new 
 features will be GPLv3 only.

 BR,

 Benjamin


 ___
 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


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


Re: [Interest] Finish QLineEdit editing when user clicks anywhere outside the QLineEdit

2019-08-14 Thread Murphy, Sean
> Ah. In our case, the QLineEdit is inside (and parented by) a widget that
> provides the background of the window. That parent widget can accept
> focus, so I guess our cases are not quite the same.

Ok, good! I thought I missed something. In my case, that is a problem since the 
user can click anywhere, including widgets that don't accept focus. And to make 
my custom line edit class portable, I shouldn't know or care anything about 
what other widgets are out there in the entire application.

I'm going down a path that seems to be working so far - using an event filter 
installed on the qApp instance that looks for mouse clicks and reports back to 
the line edit whether the click occurred within the line edit or not. If it is 
within, I just let QLineEdit handle it normally, if it's outside, then I finish 
editing. I still need to test more, but so far it's looking like what I want to 
do.

Sean


This message has been scanned for malware by Forcepoint. www.forcepoint.com
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest


Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread David M. Cotter
it’s a labor of love, i make about $2000 per month on it, so about $24k per 
year, and that just about covers my expenses and let’s me eat out sometimes. I 
occasionally have 2 others help me (3 developers).  if i had to pay, it would 
cost $16k per year? that makes the business pointless.  i’m ALLOWED to use the 
free version, right? or did i misunderstand how LGPL works?

> On Aug 14, 2019, at 10:11 AM, Vadim Peretokin  wrote:
> 
> Sorry but I'll ask the obvious question: you bet your entire business without 
> paying for a license? 
> 
> Have I misunderstood you?
> 
> On Wed, 14 Aug. 2019, 7:01 pm David M. Cotter,  > wrote:
> +1 on this
> 
> i am in the process of porting my legacy project to Qt and am afraid that 
> i’ve made the wrong choice.  i’m just one guy and i bet my whole business on 
> the availability of what  i need from Qt under LGPL
> 
> i’m already using a third party HTTP server so i’m not affected by this but 
> it’s a worrying sign. I too agree that the HTTP server really should be LGPL.
> 
> What’s going to happen? It’s taken me over a year’s worth of work to get this 
> far with Qt and i’m only half done. did i make the wrong choice? 
> 
> -dave
> 
> > On Aug 14, 2019, at 9:18 AM, Benjamin TERRIER  > > wrote:
> > 
> > Hi everyone,
> > 
> > Since we are talking about the future of Qt these days, I would like
> > to know The Qt Company free software policy with Qt.
> > 
> > Today, most of Qt modules are released under 3 free software licenses: 
> > LGPLv3,
> > GPLv2 and GPLv3. Some modules are released only under GPLv3.
> > If my memory is good, these GPLv3-only modules are the ones which used to
> > be commercial-only modules (like Qt Charts).
> > 
> > However, it seems to me that most, if not all (except Qt 3D), new Qt modules
> > are now being released only under GPLv3:
> >  - Network Auth
> >  - WebGL
> >  - WASM
> >  - Http Server
> >  - Lottie
> >  - Quick 3D
> >  - MQTT
> > 
> > I understand that The Qt Company is only obligated to release new modules
> > under GPLv3 (because of the KDE agreement).
> > I understand also that The Qt Company business model is selling Qt licenses
> > and has no direct financial interests in releasing Qt under any other 
> > license.
> > 
> > So I can understand that some modules, in particular those valuable for 
> > wealthy industrial companies,
> > are only released under GPLv3.
> > However, for some modules like HttpServer, it seems to be an odd choice. 
> > There are plenty
> > alternatives available under LGPL or more permissive licenses, so I do not 
> > see what 
> > would be the loss of releasing it under LGPLv3.
> > 
> > Also the fact that those modules are GPLv3 only is a problem when 
> > developing with other
> > components that are GPLv2 only (and not GPLv2+).
> > 
> > So I would like that someone could officially confirm if all new modules 
> > will be 
> > released under GPLv3 only. Or if it is something that is decided on a per 
> > module
> > basis.
> > 
> > I believe that Qt users and contributors deserve to know what it The Qt 
> > Company
> > view on this.
> > Using an LGPLv3 framework is not the same thing as using a GPLv3 framework
> > where some historical parts are available under LGPLv3 and all new features 
> > will be GPLv3 only.
> > 
> > BR,
> > 
> > Benjamin
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > 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] Finish QLineEdit editing when user clicks anywhere outside the QLineEdit

2019-08-14 Thread John Weeks
Ah. In our case, the QLineEdit is inside (and parented by) a widget that 
provides the background of the window. That parent widget can accept focus, so 
I guess our cases are not quite the same.

> On Aug 14, 2019, at 9:35 AM, Murphy, Sean  wrote:
> 
>> I used the QLineEdit  focusOutEvent() event.
> 
> Can you elaborate on that? Because when I tested yesterday, if the user 
> clicks on something that does NOT grab focus (for example, any whitespace 
> that exists in the layout between widgets), the line edit never gets a 
> focusOutEvent().
> 
> I need it to work if the user clicks ANYWHERE outside the QLineEdit, and 
> there's no way for me to predict/guarantee what the user is going to click 
> on...
> 
> Sean
> 
> 
> This message has been scanned for malware by Forcepoint. www.forcepoint.com
> ___
> Interest mailing list
> Interest@qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

-John

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


Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 09:18:05 PDT Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> So I would like that someone could officially confirm if all new modules
> will be
> released under GPLv3 only. Or if it is something that is decided on a per
> module
> basis.

It's decided on a per-module basis, based on the authors of the module's 
wishes.

-- 
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 free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread Vadim Peretokin
Sorry but I'll ask the obvious question: you bet your entire business
without paying for a license?

Have I misunderstood you?

On Wed, 14 Aug. 2019, 7:01 pm David M. Cotter,  wrote:

> +1 on this
>
> i am in the process of porting my legacy project to Qt and am afraid that
> i’ve made the wrong choice.  i’m just one guy and i bet my whole business
> on the availability of what  i need from Qt under LGPL
>
> i’m already using a third party HTTP server so i’m not affected by this
> but it’s a worrying sign. I too agree that the HTTP server really should be
> LGPL.
>
> What’s going to happen? It’s taken me over a year’s worth of work to get
> this far with Qt and i’m only half done. did i make the wrong choice?
>
> -dave
>
> > On Aug 14, 2019, at 9:18 AM, Benjamin TERRIER 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Since we are talking about the future of Qt these days, I would like
> > to know The Qt Company free software policy with Qt.
> >
> > Today, most of Qt modules are released under 3 free software licenses:
> LGPLv3,
> > GPLv2 and GPLv3. Some modules are released only under GPLv3.
> > If my memory is good, these GPLv3-only modules are the ones which used to
> > be commercial-only modules (like Qt Charts).
> >
> > However, it seems to me that most, if not all (except Qt 3D), new Qt
> modules
> > are now being released only under GPLv3:
> >  - Network Auth
> >  - WebGL
> >  - WASM
> >  - Http Server
> >  - Lottie
> >  - Quick 3D
> >  - MQTT
> >
> > I understand that The Qt Company is only obligated to release new modules
> > under GPLv3 (because of the KDE agreement).
> > I understand also that The Qt Company business model is selling Qt
> licenses
> > and has no direct financial interests in releasing Qt under any other
> license.
> >
> > So I can understand that some modules, in particular those valuable for
> wealthy industrial companies,
> > are only released under GPLv3.
> > However, for some modules like HttpServer, it seems to be an odd choice.
> There are plenty
> > alternatives available under LGPL or more permissive licenses, so I do
> not see what
> > would be the loss of releasing it under LGPLv3.
> >
> > Also the fact that those modules are GPLv3 only is a problem when
> developing with other
> > components that are GPLv2 only (and not GPLv2+).
> >
> > So I would like that someone could officially confirm if all new modules
> will be
> > released under GPLv3 only. Or if it is something that is decided on a
> per module
> > basis.
> >
> > I believe that Qt users and contributors deserve to know what it The Qt
> Company
> > view on this.
> > Using an LGPLv3 framework is not the same thing as using a GPLv3
> framework
> > where some historical parts are available under LGPLv3 and all new
> features will be GPLv3 only.
> >
> > BR,
> >
> > Benjamin
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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 free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread David M. Cotter
+1 on this

i am in the process of porting my legacy project to Qt and am afraid that i’ve 
made the wrong choice.  i’m just one guy and i bet my whole business on the 
availability of what  i need from Qt under LGPL

i’m already using a third party HTTP server so i’m not affected by this but 
it’s a worrying sign. I too agree that the HTTP server really should be LGPL.

What’s going to happen? It’s taken me over a year’s worth of work to get this 
far with Qt and i’m only half done. did i make the wrong choice? 

-dave

> On Aug 14, 2019, at 9:18 AM, Benjamin TERRIER  wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Since we are talking about the future of Qt these days, I would like
> to know The Qt Company free software policy with Qt.
> 
> Today, most of Qt modules are released under 3 free software licenses: LGPLv3,
> GPLv2 and GPLv3. Some modules are released only under GPLv3.
> If my memory is good, these GPLv3-only modules are the ones which used to
> be commercial-only modules (like Qt Charts).
> 
> However, it seems to me that most, if not all (except Qt 3D), new Qt modules
> are now being released only under GPLv3:
>  - Network Auth
>  - WebGL
>  - WASM
>  - Http Server
>  - Lottie
>  - Quick 3D
>  - MQTT
> 
> I understand that The Qt Company is only obligated to release new modules
> under GPLv3 (because of the KDE agreement).
> I understand also that The Qt Company business model is selling Qt licenses
> and has no direct financial interests in releasing Qt under any other license.
> 
> So I can understand that some modules, in particular those valuable for 
> wealthy industrial companies,
> are only released under GPLv3.
> However, for some modules like HttpServer, it seems to be an odd choice. 
> There are plenty
> alternatives available under LGPL or more permissive licenses, so I do not 
> see what 
> would be the loss of releasing it under LGPLv3.
> 
> Also the fact that those modules are GPLv3 only is a problem when developing 
> with other
> components that are GPLv2 only (and not GPLv2+).
> 
> So I would like that someone could officially confirm if all new modules will 
> be 
> released under GPLv3 only. Or if it is something that is decided on a per 
> module
> basis.
> 
> I believe that Qt users and contributors deserve to know what it The Qt 
> Company
> view on this.
> Using an LGPLv3 framework is not the same thing as using a GPLv3 framework
> where some historical parts are available under LGPLv3 and all new features 
> will be GPLv3 only.
> 
> BR,
> 
> Benjamin
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Finish QLineEdit editing when user clicks anywhere outside the QLineEdit

2019-08-14 Thread John Weeks
I used the QLineEdit  focusOutEvent() event.

> On Aug 13, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Murphy, Sean  wrote:
> 
>> Hmm, about that extra step, to remember the filter stuff, since you already
>> have a custom line edit class, why not embed the MouseFilter class inside it?
>> I mean, the filter does not have to reside in MainWindow, it needs only the
>> qApp pointer, so you could wire it up in your custom line edit's ctor 
>> instead.
>> Thus making it an integrated part of your custom class :-)
> 
> Already planning on attempting that once I can get back around to this issue! 
> As often happens, something else is pulling my attention away at the 
> moment, but I'll give it a shot when I have time and report back.
> 
> Sean
> 
> 
> This message has been scanned for malware by Forcepoint. www.forcepoint.com
> ___
> Interest mailing list
> Interest@qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

-John

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


Re: [Interest] Overriding list properties in QML at initialisation

2019-08-14 Thread Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest

Il 14/08/19 11:23, Ulf Hermann ha scritto:

In the following example, I would expect the list to contain 2 elements
instead of 5. What are your thoughts? Should I fill a bug report and try
to provide a fix?

Yes, that would be nice. Keep in mind that the default property should
still behave the old way, but only if you actually use it as default
property. The details can be discussed in the report, though.


This behaviour cannot be changed in a source-compatible way, so it's a 
no-go, unless we also add additional C++/QML syntax for opting in to the 
new behaviour. E.g. the QML APIs for Qt3D massively depend on this.


My 2 c,
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts



smime.p7s
Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest


[Interest] Qt free software policy

2019-08-14 Thread Benjamin TERRIER
Hi everyone,

Since we are talking about the future of Qt these days, I would like
to know The Qt Company free software policy with Qt.

Today, most of Qt modules are released under 3 free software licenses:
LGPLv3,
GPLv2 and GPLv3. Some modules are released only under GPLv3.
If my memory is good, these GPLv3-only modules are the ones which used to
be commercial-only modules (like Qt Charts).

However, it seems to me that most, if not all (except Qt 3D), new Qt modules
are now being released only under GPLv3:
 - Network Auth
 - WebGL
 - WASM
 - Http Server
 - Lottie
 - Quick 3D
 - MQTT

I understand that The Qt Company is only obligated to release new modules
under GPLv3 (because of the KDE agreement).
I understand also that The Qt Company business model is selling Qt licenses
and has no direct financial interests in releasing Qt under any other
license.

So I can understand that some modules, in particular those valuable for
wealthy industrial companies,
are only released under GPLv3.
However, for some modules like HttpServer, it seems to be an odd choice.
There are plenty
alternatives available under LGPL or more permissive licenses, so I do not
see what
would be the loss of releasing it under LGPLv3.

Also the fact that those modules are GPLv3 only is a problem when
developing with other
components that are GPLv2 only (and not GPLv2+).

So I would like that someone could officially confirm if all new modules
will be
released under GPLv3 only. Or if it is something that is decided on a per
module
basis.

I believe that Qt users and contributors deserve to know what it The Qt
Company
view on this.
Using an LGPLv3 framework is not the same thing as using a GPLv3 framework
where some historical parts are available under LGPLv3 and all new features
will be GPLv3 only.

BR,

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


Re: [Interest] Overriding list properties in QML at initialisation

2019-08-14 Thread Ulf Hermann
Hello,

> If I create a class with a QQmlListProperty and then initialise it with 
> an array in some QML file, then subclass the QML type in a second QML 
> file and try to override the array there, when creating an instance of 
> the child class, the list contains the arrays concatenated instead of 
> the overriding array.

That's the expected behavior of the default property, e.g. children in 
QQuickItem. Arguably, it should not extend to explicitly setting any 
other list properties.

> In the following example, I would expect the list to contain 2 elements 
> instead of 5. What are your thoughts? Should I fill a bug report and try 
> to provide a fix?

Yes, that would be nice. Keep in mind that the default property should 
still behave the old way, but only if you actually use it as default 
property. The details can be discussed in the report, though.

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