[Interest] Is Nokia officially done with Qt?

[d3fault]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Pau Garcia i Quiles
<pgquiles at elpauer.org>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Actually, the KDE Free Qt Foundation agreement is not that good. It
> only covers X11. All the other important platforms are out: Windows,
> Mac, Android, iPhone, Symbian, QNX, VxWorks, etc. Probably Wayland
> would also be out (unless you find a very convincing way to show
> Wayland is the successor to X11).
>

Well frack me, why would anyone even mention the BSD Clause then if it's so
worthless? Second time in less than an hour where skimming made me look
stupid (but why would I look at the definition of "Qt" [1] (explicit to KDE
Windows System) and the definition of "KDE Windows System" [2] (explicit to
X11 and 'successors') while looking for the trigger requirements?)

[1] - http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/images/nokia-agreement-3.jpg
[2] - http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/images/nokia-agreement-2.jpg

I retract my "good job broskies"... but we can still fist bumb if you want
(whoever you are).

Aside: I wonder if the modularization of Qt in 5.0 affects that? Does BSD
Clause now only cover QtBase? rofl. Edit: I read more of the agreement and
found the answer wooo. The answer is: any code that moves out of Qt is
still considered a part of Qt. I bet a lot of the modules that were never
in QtBase aren't included in the BSD Clause either.

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Thiago Macieira
<thiago.macieira at intel.com>wrote:

> On sexta-feira, 15 de junho de 2012 15.35.52, d3fault wrote:
> > LGPL is good enough. The fork is more important than triggering the BSD
> > Clause..
>
> No, most people don't want the rights to be exercised. The Foundation is a
> "poison pill", a last resort solution if all else fails.
>
> We're nowhere near there.
>

Why a poison pill? I'd consider it a life pill if anything. The switch to
BSD license would allow for development on any platform without a
commercial license and that would attract more developers.

I mean yea we're just talking hypothetically now that Pau Garcia i Quiles
has said his piece... but I don't see your rationale and am curious. Is it
because people could keep their changes to Qt private (they can already do
this, they just have to pay for a Commercial license first) and is
"offering the competition the very rope with which to hang yourself
<grin>." [3] ? I support such assisted suicide. If you don't want to
maintain your fork, you have to give your changes back. Simple and
effective. I'm not looking for a back and forth, but I'd like to know your
reasons... especially since Qt Commercial already allows you to do the same
thing "for a fee" (so we lose the private changes, Digia makes a buck, and
Qt doesn't attract as many developers as it would if it was licensed under
BSD (the ones that want to make private changes, but aren't willing to buy
a Commercial license (who could arguably still end up contributing in other
areas: bugs etc... while keeping their larger changes to themselves))).

[3] - http://daisy-trac.cvsdude.com/tobi/wiki/LGPLvsBSD (down. cached:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nu0ujyB_36IJ:daisy-trac.cvsdude.com/tobi/wiki/LGPLvsBSD)

d3fault
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20120615/c2252879/attachment.html>