Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st May 2008 00:09 UTC, submitted by RJop
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 315002
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: qt dark site, whahahaa
by segedunum on Wed 21st May 2008 09:04
in reply to "RE[3]: qt dark site, whahahaa"
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.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
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.)