Hi,
If there is misleading or incorrect information in the website, please let us
know: https://www.qt.io/contact-us/other
Open-source licensing is a complex topic, so it is always easiest to look into
it case by case as it depends a lot upon what and how is developed. The qt.io
website
On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 16:07:46 PDT Simon Matthews wrote:
> [simon@UserBuild qtwebengine]$ make
> make: Nothing to be done for 'first'.
That indicates it did not configure itself to build. I ran into this issue
today: one of my colleagues is workng to remove Python2 from the distribution
On 10/9/19 3:52 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 15:18:33 PDT Simon Matthews wrote:
>> However, it appears that files such as "Qt5WebEngineConfig.cmake" are
>> not included in my build.
>>
>> Is it necessary to build QtWebEngine as a separate build?
> No.
>
> Are you sure
On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 15:18:33 PDT Simon Matthews wrote:
> However, it appears that files such as "Qt5WebEngineConfig.cmake" are
> not included in my build.
>
> Is it necessary to build QtWebEngine as a separate build?
No.
Are you sure the build completed without errors? To be sure, go
On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 11:43:58 PDT Uwe Rathmann wrote:
> Of course this information is useless for someone who wants to change
> the license - the decision for the LGPL had been made long before. It is
> about sending the message that you should not do LGPL, if you don't want
> to be banned
On 10/8/19 11:46 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday, 8 October 2019 14:16:28 PDT Simon Matthews wrote:
>> I am trying to build Qt 5.13.1 on CentOS6.
>
> You're missing xkbcommon. Please install 0.5.0 or later.
I was able to find appropriate packages for xkbcommon and build Qt 5.13.1.
I need
Am Wed, 9 Oct 2019 20:43:58 +0200
schrieb Uwe Rathmann :
> Of course this information is useless for someone who wants to change
> the license - the decision for the LGPL had been made long before. It is
> about sending the message that you should not do LGPL, if you don't want
> to be banned
On 10/9/19 5:32 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
All cases are good. It just depends on how much you pay.
Today:
"If you have already started the development with an open-source version
of Qt and wish to move to a commercial license you need to have a
written explicit permission from The Qt
Hi,
Today I have stumbled on a really particular problem on my Qt Android app.
I use OneSignal for Push Notifications and PiracyChecker for piracy checking.
Before both libs were hosted on jitpack but recently OneSignal has moved to:
maven { url 'https://plugins.gradle.org/m2/‘}
The problem
On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 05:48:52 PDT Uwe Rathmann wrote:
> > Similar rule is related to not being ok to develop the solution with
> > free version and then ship under commercial one. We do allow
> > migration from open-source to commercial - of course. The case by
> > case acceptance rule is
Hi Tuukka,
This is not about making closed source applications with LGPL
licensed Qt, or whatever kind of business is done with such.
Of course this thread is also about these options - I'm criticizing
the way how the Qt Company tries to prevent users from taking this route.
The point is
Hi Uwe,
This is not about making closed source applications with LGPL licensed Qt, or
whatever kind of business is done with such.
The point is that Qt as a dual licensed technology has some rules related to
the commercial license option. One of these rules is that the whole team should
go
Am Wed, 9 Oct 2019 11:05:08 +0200
schrieb Uwe Rathmann :
> But I have a strong opinion about using FUD as sales strategy:
>
> - intimidation paragraphs
> - blacklisting projects that follow the rules of the LGPL properly
> - giving wrong information ( check the video ) about the LGPL
>
> Uwe
On 10/8/19 7:13 PM, Ilya Diallo wrote:
In the latter case, the rational is (I guess) to prevent a company,
say, to work with 20 developers for 3 years on an OSS Qt license,
then switch to commercial when it's time to ship the product and the
team is reduced to a core maintenance crew. That
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019 09:26:19 PDT Roland Hughes wrote:
> > That DOES work with keys produced by OpenSSL that was affected by the
> > Debian bug you described. That's because the bug caused the problem space
> > to be extremely restricted. You said 32768 (2^15) possibilities.
>
> Unless the
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019 14:09:18 PDT Ola Røer Thorsen wrote:
> Hi all, I've got a thread in an application (Linux, Qt 5.13.0) which just
> writes udp datagrams at a relatively high frequency (video streaming).
> Sometimes the QUdpSocket::writeDatagram function returns -1 and the socket
> error
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019 14:16:28 PDT Simon Matthews wrote:
> I am trying to build Qt 5.13.1 on CentOS6.
Upgrade.
> I have the related xcb packages installed:
[...]
> Package libxcb-devel-1.12-4.el6.x86_64 already installed and latest version
> Package xcb-util-0.4.0-2.2.el6.x86_64 already
“In the latter case, the rational is (I guess) to prevent a company, say, to
work with 20 developers for 3 years on an OSS Qt license, then switch to
commercial when it's time to ship the product and the team is reduced to a core
maintenance crew. That late switch is unfair to companies that
18 matches
Mail list logo
