[Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience methods

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 22/03/2021 23.18, Jason H wrote:
> Qt needs to go back to LGPL, or risk getting abandoned/replaced. Seems like some of the long time users here on this list have come to a similar conclusion.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Qt needs to go the way of 
OpenOffice.org.

That is, we need some folks to step up and decide that we're through 
with TQtC and we're going to continue Qt on our own, very possibly from 
5.15, as pure LGPL.

It probably isn't possible for contributors to retract rights already 
given to TQtC, but stop giving them new rights. Stop contributing under 
a CLA.

It would help tremendously if KDE was on board; wherever they go, the 
community will probably follow. Right now I'm worried that they're 
headed toward oblivion, which would make me really sad, because I do 
*not* care for Gnome. (That's not to say I think Gnome developers or 
users are terrible people, I just *personally* don't care for it.)

(I'd love to take CMake from 6.x, but I'm not exactly neutral in that 
respect, particularly as I've never used qmake. I'm not sure how much 
else from 6.x would be worth keeping. *Maybe* some of the move toward 
QVector. *Not* the total removal of QList, or the changes to QHash.)

-- 
Matthew