[Development] The place of QML

[d3fault]

On 5/11/12, BRM <bm_witness at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 1. We are not _Nokia's_ core customers. Never were. Qt is extremely small
> compared to Nokia at large.

Not Nokia's core customers... Qt's core customers. Nokia's core
customers are Mobile end users... which is why they're pushing so hard
for this Toy Programming Language targeting mobile. Nokia takes Qt
profits (which are minimal compared to Nokia sales -- but this point
is irrelevant) and combines them with gross Nokia revenue. Nokia then
invests (perhaps more than Qt profits -- though, again, irrelevant) in
Qt in an area mostly only of interest to Nokia.

> For starters, there's already a foundation in place -
> http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php.
> That Foundation has the right to license Qt under a "BSD-style license or
> under
> other open source licenses" regardless of any other licensing.
> Qt is protected in that manner for both Open Source _and_ commercial users.
>
> That said, KDE4 uses QML extensively so I'm not sure they (KDE) would
> necessarily agree with you.
>
> So no new charity/organization is required; and no other fork will get that
> kind of licensing ability either.

The KDE Free Qt Foundation is more of a backup plan. Should Qt cease
to be released/developed (that wording is so vague it's downright
retarded) under LGPL/GPL for 1 year, the KDE people can release it
under BSD (or other) license. The KDE people actively develop Qt
regardless and are not concerned with the monetization of Qt...
whereas the point I'm trying to make is that the Qt Project generates
*enough* money based purely on Commercial Sales (which mostly just
boil down to support anyways -- the LGPL is good enough for *most*
Commercial uses) to drive it's own development. When thinking about
'what future development should be targeted by the revenue generated
by support sales?', Nokia's concerns (Mobile Platform Toy Programming
Language) should not factor in.

Again and again it is mentioned "if you want it done, code it
yourself". But my response to you is that we are the majority (of Qt
_users_ (developers who use Qt)) and you have an obligation to code it
for us, you being the collectors of any/all revenue generated by said
project (and here's the kicker: you also collect moneys on any code
contributed by us to said project). Nokia letting Digia handle support
for them does not factor in. Nokia still owns Qt.

inb4 idiots in denial saying C++ GUI API is not what the majority of
Qt user's want (see various polls on the forum)

On 5/11/12, Atlant Schmidt <aschmidt at dekaresearch.com> wrote:
>   Now ask yourself how many millions of Euros could be
>   spent at some future point litigating whether or not
>   Nokia has "discontinued" the development of Qt. They
>   could entirely stop work on QWidget but the QML work
>   would probably prevent the triggering of the escape
>   clause.
>
>                            Atlant

Two things (even though we're apparently on the same side):
1) They already have stopped working on QWidgets. One could already
argue that Nokia has already stopped development (I won't make that
argument because there's still a whole lot to Qt 5 aside from QML).
2) Time/money spent litigating would be wasted (unless you _REALLY_
want that BSD license (*cough iOS*)). It should instead be spent on
forking Qt (free: LGPL + commercia: LGPL + Support) -- which, as Quim
pointed out, we don't need Nokia's permission to do:

On 5/11/12, Quim Gil <quim.gil at nokia.com> wrote:
> The great thing about Qt Project is that you don't need to oust Nokia or
> anybody or relicense anything to push a Qt module forward. You can Just
> Do It (or convince someone to do it, with nice words or green notes).
> You can do it inside the Qt Project game through bugs, patches,
> approvers, maintenance. You can even fork the code and work on it
> somewhere else, if you think that will help your goals. But remember,
> you still will need you or someone to work on it.

And he also made note "you still will need you or someone to work on
it". Exactly. Qt Commercial Sales (post-fork) will fund the 'someone
working on it'. The difference being the 'someone' will be told what
to do by someone with Qt's real goals in mind... not Nokia's [goals].
Also, Quim: what is your response to the fact that all code
contributed to the Qt Project (as it stands) gives Nokia exclusive
rights to redistribute said contributed code under terms other than
the LGPL? We make it, they sell it (and then use the proceeds towards
some useless short sighted corporate goal)!

> Nokia has been asked to develop QWidget further many times, and the
> answer has been consistent every time: Nokia is happy with the DONE
> status and prefers to focus its resources in other areas that it
> considers benefit not only Nokia but the whole Qt Project in today's
> World.

Disagree. Nokia focuses its resources on areas that benefit Nokia.
That's how a business works. They might make the [marketing] claim
that it's for the whole Qt Project's interests... but multiple polls
have shown otherwise (including one recently shut down by a Nokian).

>Nokia's investment in Qt is big (check
> http://www.macieira.org/blog/qt-stats/ ) therefore I'm not really sure
> the best approach is to put more pressure or requests in that direction.

"Big"
so Money + Manpower = Great Software??
wow I wish I knew that earlier... I could be a million dollars by now

> Why not asking others?

Nokia owns Qt outright and are the only ones capable of preventing a
fork. I don't want a fork. I don't want segregation because it is
expensive and hurts real development.


tl;dr:
You + 3rd Parties --(Contribute Revenue Generating
Modules/Code/Fixes/Enhancements)--> Qt Project/Nokia/Digia --(revenue
generated goes to Nokia's bottom line [mobile] (or Digia's bottom
line, but that's irrelevant))--> Qt Project is Funded by Nokia who is
targeting Nokia's bottom line (mobile)

All in all, I acknowledge I'm wasting my breathe. Nokia doesn't give a
shit about me, only their bottom line. Why bitch, then? Why not just
go out and start a "Qt Charity" and offer support for Qt-deriv/fork
released under LGPL? It could even be classified as a for profit
business. The reason is simple: I'm just one guy. A fork, a
charity/business, and support are a fuck ton of work. I'd rather let
the ideas float on this mailing list before just charging out my front
door with a sword drawn.
Lastly, a fork would hurt the Qt Project/Nokia/Digia the most. The
fork could still PULL all of Qt Project/Nokia/Digia's work to
itself... and accept patches and further contributions directly under
the LGPL (not requiring the Qt Contributor's Agreement, which let's
Nokia do anything they want with your code). Nokia would be unable to
pull said LGPL-only enhancements without convincing the author's to
sign a Qt Project Contributor's Agreement (and why would they?).

d3fault