Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Reply
Thread Tools
nocain is offline nocain
2011-02-14 , 06:23
Posts: 35 | Thanked: 19 times | Joined on Sep 2010
#11
Originally Posted by mikecomputing View Post
hell are u serius about this :O
Yes he is serious, that's the problem with this move, I think the last update gave copy paste and one other of the items on the list, and a few of those items are because the platform api's are incomplete and sometime this year it will be fleshed out more... But yeah for the most part all true.
 
wmarone is offline wmarone
2011-02-14 , 06:30
Posts: 1,746 | Thanked: 2,100 times | Joined on Sep 2009
#12
Originally Posted by rm42 View Post
However, if Qt was released under a BSD style license it is much more likely that another company, or even a number of companies, might become interested in pursuing Qt as a business through closed source or dual license strategies, as Trolltech used to do.
Fracturing it like that would be a surefire route to killing it. All the successful BSD projects have a defined trunk, regardless of being able to be taken proprietary as that's the only way for such a project to survive.

I don't believe MS wants to see a BSD Qt.
MS would love a BSD Qt, they could take and borrow stuff freely without concern of license violations or having to contribute back to the developers.

Therefore, it is more likely that Elop will keep Qt in some sort of light, lip service, development indefinitely, while trying to sabotage it and discourage its use every way he can. That is the worst thing I can think of happening to Qt.
The worst thing that can happen is he tries that and KDE decides to force the issue and fork it. They can take the GPL and LGPL license and run with it. No BSD license, no proprietary licensing schemes.

Much like other unresponsive managing bodies (that passively or actively ignore user complaints, like XFree86), they can be bypassed by virtue of the license. You'll have to change the name, but like LibreOffice and Xorg, it will become the new trunk and the old, dead branch will wither.
 
rm42's Avatar
rm42 is offline rm42
2011-02-14 , 13:31
Posts: 963 | Thanked: 626 times | Joined on Sep 2009 @ Connecticut, USA
#13
Originally Posted by wmarone View Post
Fracturing it like that would be a surefire route to killing it. All the successful BSD projects have a defined trunk, regardless of being able to be taken proprietary as that's the only way for such a project to survive.
While I do agree that having a single common trunk is the best option, I'm not sure I agree that spawning several slightly incompatible QT-derived tool kits would be good for MS. We are talking about developer tools, each with a different name/trademark, not OSs.

Originally Posted by wmarone View Post
MS would love a BSD Qt, they could take and borrow stuff freely without concern of license violations or having to contribute back to the developers.
I doubt this too, frankly. But, it is possible. I just don't think that the benefit they would get from it could compensate for the level of threat of having a viable, top notch, cross-platform, tool kit in the market.

Originally Posted by wmarone View Post
The worst thing that can happen is he tries that and KDE decides to force the issue and fork it. They can take the GPL and LGPL license and run with it. No BSD license, no proprietary licensing schemes.
The worst thing for who? For MS? I don't think this is their worst case scenario.

Originally Posted by wmarone View Post
Much like other unresponsive managing bodies (that passively or actively ignore user complaints, like XFree86), they can be bypassed by virtue of the license. You'll have to change the name, but like LibreOffice and Xorg, it will become the new trunk and the old, dead branch will wither.
I could live with this scenario, but I am not sure it is the best that can be had.
__________________
-- Worse than not knowing is not wanting to know! --

http://temporaryland.wordpress.com/
 
Jedibeeftrix is offline Jedibeeftrix
2011-02-14 , 13:41
Posts: 735 | Thanked: 1,054 times | Joined on Jun 2010
#14
Originally Posted by uvatbc View Post
My hope/dream/wildest imagination is if a group of hackers came together and ported Qt to WP7.
That would be the most distruptive thing that can ever happen to Mr Elop's plans with Microsoft.
In fact I'd wager so far as to say that Qt is ported to WP7, then there is actual merit to joining up with Microsoft (from Nokia's point of view).
Suddenly, Qt isn't just on a soon-to-be-dead Symbian, a niche-market Maemo and yet-to-be-born Meego, all of which are Nokia supported - it will be on a brand new platform that has thus far rejected everything other than .NET.
Given that the world is now looking at Nokia and Microsoft, this new direction will not go unnoticed.

If Qt on WP7 were announced soon enough this entire episode may turn out to be an astounding PR win.

If only...
agreed, good post.
 
gruik is offline gruik
2011-02-14 , 13:52
Posts: 94 | Thanked: 59 times | Joined on Jun 2010
#15
qt on WP7? I'm not a developper but I don't think it's possible. It would be a good thing to not lost "nokia's spirit"
 
rm42's Avatar
rm42 is offline rm42
2011-02-14 , 21:03
Posts: 963 | Thanked: 626 times | Joined on Sep 2009 @ Connecticut, USA
#16
Insightful post with advice for Qt developers:

http://developer.qt.nokia.com/forums/viewreply/23473/

Now paid Qt developers are another issue, sadly. Having been on this market for 20 years, my only advice to them would be to wait for a month to see whether Qt is sold in some form or another to a reasonable entity (Intel, Canonical, whoever) and if not, escape while you can. Unless, of course, you discover a sudden interest in yourselves for .Net and C# :-)
I agree. While the official Nokia line is that Qt will still be developed. Everyone knows that from now on, Nokia's efforts in the Qt direction are mostly just token efforts. I saw a slide earlier today (can't remember where, sorry) that showed a chart of the change in direction and focus for Nokia. The Qt bar was a third of what it is now. That does not sound like the kind of leadership that Qt deserves. I don't think that Qt's future is dead. It just doesn't lye within Nokia.
__________________
-- Worse than not knowing is not wanting to know! --

http://temporaryland.wordpress.com/
 
Frappacino is offline Frappacino
2011-02-14 , 21:20
Posts: 619 | Thanked: 691 times | Joined on Feb 2010
#17
About forking

http://blog.qt.nokia.com/2011/02/12/...future-for-qt/

=======================

Everyone, stop talking about forking!! Be realistic, look at the number of commits from Nokia versus everyone else combined. NOTHING is going to replace the hundreds of thousands of man hours a paid, full-time team can afford to put in. If you think so, then simple question: are YOU planning to hack QT for 40 hours a week? If Nokia ditches the Trolls and it’s not picked up by anyone else (Intel, are you listening?), it is OVER outside of KDE. You’d be crazy to develop on a practically stationary platform when WPF, Cocoa, etc. keep moving fast ahead.

=====================

Disclaimer - I know nothing about Qt personally, was just reading the blog.
 
rm42's Avatar
rm42 is offline rm42
2011-02-14 , 21:28
Posts: 963 | Thanked: 626 times | Joined on Sep 2009 @ Connecticut, USA
#18
Originally Posted by Frappacino View Post
About forking

http://blog.qt.nokia.com/2011/02/12/...future-for-qt/

=======================

Everyone, stop talking about forking!! Be realistic, look at the number of commits from Nokia versus everyone else combined. NOTHING is going to replace the hundreds of thousands of man hours a paid, full-time team can afford to put in. If you think so, then simple question: are YOU planning to hack QT for 40 hours a week? If Nokia ditches the Trolls and it’s not picked up by anyone else (Intel, are you listening?), it is OVER outside of KDE. You’d be crazy to develop on a practically stationary platform when WPF, Cocoa, etc. keep moving fast ahead.

=====================

Disclaimer - I know nothing about Qt personally, was just reading the blog.
Sure he is talking about "the number of commits from Nokia versus everyone else combined" as they are now, before the change in direction starts being implemented. But, once the layoffs and change in focus mandates start taking effect things will look very differently.
__________________
-- Worse than not knowing is not wanting to know! --

http://temporaryland.wordpress.com/
 
ericsson is offline ericsson
2011-02-14 , 21:35
Banned | Posts: 974 | Thanked: 622 times | Joined on Oct 2010
#19
Why not declare Qt what it really is, a "disruptive" technology? It clearly is I heard that the Elop dude was looking for disruptive technologies. Here it is.
 
wmarone is offline wmarone
2011-02-14 , 21:47
Posts: 1,746 | Thanked: 2,100 times | Joined on Sep 2009
#20
Originally Posted by rm42 View Post
While I do agree that having a single common trunk is the best option, I'm not sure I agree that spawning several slightly incompatible QT-derived tool kits would be good for MS. We are talking about developer tools, each with a different name/trademark, not OSs.
Apparently I didn't make myself clear. Microsoft would -love- it if Qt wholly fractured as such. The chance for compatibility goes out the door and suddenly it's too much of a pain to work with "JoeBob's Custom Framework (based on Qt!)" You'd have naming conflicts all over the place, version conflicts, etc.

Fortunately, even BSD I doubt it'd fracture. Hell, that'd make the licensing question even easier for proprietary users.

I doubt this too, frankly. But, it is possible. I just don't think that the benefit they would get from it could compensate for the level of threat of having a viable, top notch, cross-platform, tool kit in the market.
The threat's been there for years, and it's used by many vendors deliberately to avoid platform lock-in and increase cross-platform availability (Xilinx, for instance, uses Qt for their tools.) If it wasn't a threat before it won't be a threat going forward.

The worst thing for who? For MS? I don't think this is their worst case scenario.
No, for people who use Qt. There is no real worst case scenario for Microsoft, since at least on WP7 they bar all non .NET/CLR code (including "managed c++").

I could live with this scenario, but I am not sure it is the best that can be had.
Well, the only thing you lose is the ability to take it proprietary. The desire to do that requires that people who submit code assign copyright, which was a large part of why OpenOffice.org rarely ever got the community involved in fixes. Once you can't take it closed, there's no reason to refuse outside help.
 
Reply
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:01.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top