Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st May 2008 00:09 UTC, submitted by RJop
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless OpenMoko, the project that creates not only a Linux operating system for phones but the hardware to run it as well, has announced some major changes to its software stack. Traditionally a Gtk+ endeavour, this is all going to change rather drastically.
Thread beginning with comment 314993
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: qt dark site, whahahaa
by leos on Wed 21st May 2008 03:34 UTC in reply to "RE: qt dark site, whahahaa"
leos
Member since:
2005-09-21


If you want people writing software for your platform, that pretty much sucks, because you are alienating a large userbase that doesn't wish to publish their code under the GPL and has no intention in purchasing a Qt License.


That would be the common myth, but so far there really isn't any evidence for it. Maemo is built on GTK, yet there is not much (any?) 3rd party commercial development for it. Also, Qt allows you to use many free software licenses (BSD, Apache, etc) for your code even if you don't buy the commercial license.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 5

RE[3]: qt dark site, whahahaa
by TLZ_ on Wed 21st May 2008 06:43 in reply to "RE[2]: qt dark site, whahahaa"
TLZ_ Member since:
2007-02-05

Well, the one thing about the licensing here is that alot of people prob. feel that it is unfair that Qt-users can buy themselves out of the GPL-licencing. (And would rather prefer LGPL) Although it definetely makes bussiness-sense to do the dual-licence thing. As for busssiness interest in the toolkits I wouldn't be suprised if Qt gives lower TCO than GTK+. (Since Qt seems to be a bit more RAD'ish)

I didn't know that you could use other licences than GPL on Qt apps, so thanks for that info. ;)

I still do prefer GTK licence though. But that's simply because I think someone(as in "poor" indidivuals that can't use money on Qt-licence) should be allowed create closed source apps if they want to. And if they shouldn't be allowed to do that then large money-strong corporations shouldn't either.

No disrespect to Qt, just personal preference. (And the dual-licencning thing is probably partly what have financed Qt to become what it is.)

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3

RE[4]: qt dark site, whahahaa
by segedunum on Wed 21st May 2008 09:04 in reply to "RE[3]: qt dark site, whahahaa"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, the one thing about the licensing here is that alot of people prob. feel that it is unfair that Qt-users can buy themselves out of the GPL-licencing.

A lot of people could argue that it is unfair that people can opt straight out of GPL licensing, without contributing code or anything else back to GTK. There's no incentive to make GTK better, either through more code going on or a contribution of costs.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 4

RE[3]: qt dark site, whahahaa
by reduz on Wed 21st May 2008 15:17 in reply to "RE[2]: qt dark site, whahahaa"
reduz Member since:
2006-02-25


That would be the common myth


It's not a myth, it's a reality. Maemo and other platforms don't have a lot of propertary/nonGPL software simply because they are not massive enough. Compare it to palmpilot, winCE, jave phones, etc which had a lot of software written for them simply because they are.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

RE[4]: qt dark site, whahahaa
by leos on Wed 21st May 2008 18:06 in reply to "RE[3]: qt dark site, whahahaa"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

It's not a myth, it's a reality. Maemo and other platforms don't have a lot of propertary/nonGPL software simply because they are not massive enough.


Excuses excuses. The Palm Zaurus was Qtopia based and had probably similar selection of software. So you have absolutely no evidence that Qt based platforms scare away proprietary developers. Until you can point at a Qtopia platform that actually doesn't have any 3rd party proprietary apps you're just guessing.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 6