Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

o:* interest@qt-project.org <mailto:interest@qt-project.org> *Subject:* Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron On 08/06/2018 05:36 PM, ekke wrote: this is frustrating: knowing that Qt is great for mobile apps, but there's a license cost barriere Don't forget about the roy

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

[Interest] QML vs Electron On 08/06/2018 05:36 PM, ekke wrote: this is frustrating: knowing that Qt is great for mobile apps, but there's a license cost barriere Don't forget about the royalties when you start offering things for sale. -- Roland Hughes, President Logikal Solutions (630

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

On 08/08/18 08:34, Guenter Schwann via Interest wrote: On Dienstag, 7. August 2018 15:00:22 CEST Nikos Chantziaras wrote: But in any case, Android seems fine when using LGPL libraries, since a) Qt is linked to dynamically, and b) Android officially supports sideloading. Does this cover

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

On Dienstag, 7. August 2018 15:00:22 CEST Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > But in any case, Android seems fine when using LGPL libraries, since a) > Qt is linked to dynamically, and b) Android officially supports sideloading. Does this cover tivoization (as it's v3 of LGPL) for closed source apps

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 at 17:25, ekke wrote: > Am 07.08.18 um 15:52 schrieb Mike Krus via Interest: > > It was already addressed in my post. It seems to satisfy LGPL requirements on > your part, but not on Apple's part (because they don't allow the re-linked > application to run due to their DRM.)

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

Am 07.08.18 um 15:52 schrieb Mike Krus via Interest: >> It was already addressed in my post. It seems to satisfy LGPL requirements >> on your part, but not on Apple's part (because they don't allow the >> re-linked application to run due to their DRM.) > given all the appropriate project setup

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

I have never met anyone until then who read the qt page and had another interpretation than the ones provided by Benjamin. > As a Free Software user you contribute or “pay” it's not, "you should" or "you can" contribute / pay, it's "you contribute". That's imperative. > That's just a

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

Am Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:52:42 +0100 schrieb Mike Krus via Interest : > > On 7 Aug 2018, at 14:31, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > > > On 07/08/18 16:04, alexander golks wrote: > >> Am Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:00:22 +0300 > >> schrieb Nikos Chantziaras : > >>> On 07/08/18 01:19, Sylvain Pointeau wrote:

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

> On 7 Aug 2018, at 14:31, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > On 07/08/18 16:04, alexander golks wrote: >> Am Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:00:22 +0300 >> schrieb Nikos Chantziaras : >>> On 07/08/18 01:19, Sylvain Pointeau wrote: On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 11:56 PM Giuseppe D'Angelo >>>

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

On 07/08/18 16:04, alexander golks wrote: Am Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:00:22 +0300 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras : On 07/08/18 01:19, Sylvain Pointeau wrote: On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 11:56 PM Giuseppe D'Angelo mailto:dange...@gmail.com>> wrote: [...] Out of curiosity, what prevented you from going with

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

Am Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:00:22 +0300 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras : > On 07/08/18 01:19, Sylvain Pointeau wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 11:56 PM Giuseppe D'Angelo > > wrote: > >> [...] > >> Out of curiosity, what prevented you from going with LGPL Qt? > > > > On

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

On 07/08/18 01:19, Sylvain Pointeau wrote: On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 11:56 PM Giuseppe D'Angelo > wrote: [...] Out of curiosity, what prevented you from going with LGPL Qt? On desktop it is clear but on mobile, there was no clear statement if we have the rights or not.

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

LGPL has not been a problem on app stores for a long time. There are plenty of GPLv3 apps on the ios store, such as Dash for instance: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dash-offline-api-docs/id1239167694?mt=8=11l8808=uo%3D4 See also https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/6495/4349 Best, ---

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

Well in 2015 there was the Independent Dev License for $25/month which disappeared and was replaced with the $350/month one and last year they changed prices over night to $460/month (all prices seen from a mobile-only dev perspective). That's about $2000 more per year for a single developer!

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

It seems Qt suffers from misunderstanding/misinformation and this is pure Qt Company's fault And yes, 100$/mo a bit too expensive for startupers, something like 25-30$/mo sounds more reasonable Also, it would be nice to get clear FAQ what developers can and what they cannot do under LGPL license

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

; *Sent:* Tuesday, August 7, 2018 12:58 AM > *To:* interest@qt-project.org > *Subject:* Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron > > > > > > > > On 08/06/2018 05:36 PM, ekke wrote: > > this is frustrating: knowing that Qt is great for mobile apps, but > > there's a lic

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

Am 06.08.18 um 23:46 schrieb Sylvain Pointeau: > I fully agree with you. I am fully convinced by Qt, I wanted to go > with Qt, but the price was too high. > On the website, it is not said anywhere the price for a startup. yes - it's something "hidden" - here's the original Qt Blog about startup

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

question, please get in touch with your sales representative directly and ask for details and/or an offer. BR, Maurice From: Interest On Behalf Of Roland Hughes Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 12:58 AM To: interest@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron On 08/06/2018 05:36 PM

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

Do the royalties apply for desktop and mobile applications too? If I am right, the royalties do apply for only embedded devices. The royalties are paid by buying Qt for Device Creation Distribution Licenses. On 7 August 2018 at 06:57, Roland Hughes wrote: > > > On 08/06/2018 05:36 PM, ekke

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

So, their demo is old. They aren't going to sit there and update it each time. It didn't look odd to me. I spent several years coding like that when Qt believed in multiple inheritance, then they wanted to reach out to the dying language of Java . . . Perhaps you weren't around during the

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

On 08/06/2018 05:36 PM, ekke wrote: this is frustrating: knowing that Qt is great for mobile apps, but there's a license cost barriere Don't forget about the royalties when you start offering things for sale. -- Roland Hughes, President Logikal Solutions (630)-205-1593

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 11:56 PM Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: > On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 at 23:46, Sylvain Pointeau > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 3:44 PM ekke wrote: > >> > >> > >> I'm really waiting for a 30 EUR or so Indiependent Dev License. > >> > >> I know from discussions that in the

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 at 23:46, Sylvain Pointeau wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 3:44 PM ekke wrote: >> >> >> I'm really waiting for a 30 EUR or so Indiependent Dev License. >> >> I know from discussions that in the past there already was such kind of >> license with less success. >> >> But in

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 3:44 PM ekke wrote: > Am 04.08.18 um 19:23 schrieb Sylvain Pointeau: > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 at 12:58, René Hansen wrote: > >> >> Taxing big corporate use, while exempting smalltime adoption, even >> commercial, might be the way to go. This is just speculation on my part

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

Am 04.08.18 um 19:23 schrieb Sylvain Pointeau: > On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 at 12:58, René Hansen > wrote: > > > Taxing big corporate use, while exempting smalltime adoption, even > commercial, might be the way to go. This is just speculation on my > part though, I

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

I feel your pain. Let us not forget there is a __HUGE__ section of the industry which has a severe ethical problem with someone taking an OpenSource product, adding a tiny few things then trying to both license the __same__ product __and__ collect royalties in perpetuity. Those who fail to

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 at 12:58, René Hansen wrote: > > Taxing big corporate use, while exempting smalltime adoption, even > commercial, might be the way to go. This is just speculation on my part > though, I have no idea how a licensing scheme like this would work in > practice. > This was

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

That definitely has the feel and order of slime. On 02/21/2018 08:52 AM, Benjamin wrote: Maybe I should have quoted the text just above: "An obligation to share your Qt software code" I'd like to see how many new comers will understand this as "an obligation to share the modifications you have

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

nown by others >> people and even be improve by community if lucky. Also put the download and >> rating and you get something that could help give Qml more grip. >> -- >> *From:* Interest <interest-bounces+godboutj=amotus...@qt-project.org> o

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

Hello everyone, May I raise the subject of licensing when it comes to comparing QML vs Electron popularity. Electron and other javascript technologies (node, jquery, etc.) are licensed under permissive (no copyleft) open source licenses like MIT. Regarding Qt, even the most permissive license

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

You, I like you. Value to user comes first! Preach on brother! On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 16/02/18 16:53, Bob Hood wrote: > >> I want to thank all the respondents for such an interesting discussion. >> >> I think René made some interesting

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

On 16/02/18 16:53, Bob Hood wrote: I want to thank all the respondents for such an interesting discussion. I think René made some interesting observations regarding the massive community support for JS in term of package managers, frameworks and UI toolkits.  I think that is something that

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

of Bob Hood <bho...@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 9:53:27 AM To: Qt Interest Subject: Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron I want to thank all the respondents for such an interesting discussion. I think René made some interesting observations regarding the massive community support fo

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

I want to thank all the respondents for such an interesting discussion. I think René made some interesting observations regarding the massive community support for JS in term of package managers, frameworks and UI toolkits.  I think that is something that really presents a high bar of entry

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 11:29 AM > From: "Morten W. J." <mor...@winkler.dk> > To: interest@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron > > On Thursday, February 15, 2018 5:10:38 PM CET René Hansen wrote: > > [if they have had

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

On Thursday, February 15, 2018 5:10:38 PM CET René Hansen wrote: > [if they have had] Qt on the table when choosing a hybrid application architecture This is where I'd say your chain of reasoning breaks. Few projects I have heard of chose a hybrid application approach. They have a webclient

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 at 13:40 Shawn Rutledge wrote: > > > On 15 Feb 2018, at 12:23, René Hansen wrote: > > > > In my opinion Qt, (as a company), is directly responsible for the mess > that is Electron and todays scape of the app-world. I worked for Nokia

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

#comment-387476  <-- the right idea         Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 6:23 AM From: "René Hansen" <ren...@gmail.com> To: "Jean-Michaël Celerier" <jeanmichael.celer...@gmail.com> Cc: interest <interest@qt-project.org>, "Nikos Chantziaras&q

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

> On 15 Feb 2018, at 12:23, René Hansen wrote: > > In my opinion Qt, (as a company), is directly responsible for the mess that > is Electron and todays scape of the app-world. I worked for Nokia back in > 2011, when they were trying to build, and miserably failed, the

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

Obviously its not a responsibility of Qt as a company (but, I suppose, they can promote Qt even harder). The overall technical level of todays developers gets lower, unfortunately. Business requires fast solutions and doesnt care about any foreseeable future. This demand creates

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

In my opinion Qt, (as a company), is directly responsible for the mess that is Electron and todays scape of the app-world. I worked for Nokia back in 2011, when they were trying to build, and miserably failed, the next-gen phone os platform, entirely as a web-runtime. The switch to a Qt/QtQuick

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

> They don't really compare. Electron forces you to write the entire application in JS. With QML you only have to write the UI in it. The rest stays C++. As much as I like C++, the company I work at has been doing pure QML apps and they certainly have been developed faster that the equivalent in

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

Hi, recently I was comparing animation performance on i.MX6 DualLite SoC between QtQuick and HTML. I'm not an expert in HTML so do not know if I did things best possible way, but I took Servo rendering benchmark ( https://youtu.be/u0hYIRQRiws there is a link in a description) an reduced number of

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

On 2/14/2018 8:21 PM, Jason H wrote: Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 8:45 PM From: "Bob Hood" To: "Qt Interest" Subject: [Interest] QML vs Electron I'm starting to see more and more software being written in, or being ported to, Electron[1]

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

They don't really compare. Electron forces you to write the entire application in JS. With QML you only have to write the UI in it. The rest stays C++. For desktops, you should be using Widgets anyway though. QML just doesn't integrate well. It's made for phones, not desktops. It seems like

Re: [Interest] QML vs Electron

> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 8:45 PM > From: "Bob Hood" > To: "Qt Interest" > Subject: [Interest] QML vs Electron > > I'm starting to see more and more software being written in, or being ported > to, Electron[1] (e.g., Skype's latest v8