Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 3rd Mar 2009 10:55 UTC
Qt Nokia today announced the availability of version 4.5 of the Qt cross-platform application and UI framework. It also introduced Qt Creator, a new lightweight cross-platform IDE. Qt 4.5 and Qt Creator combined comprises the Qt SDK, an easy to install package that will let developers create applications quickly and easily. "Qt 4.5 is setting the benchmark for application development," said Benoit Schillings, Chief Technologist, Qt Software, Nokia (and for those who remember, one of the original BeOS developers). It's also the first release of Qt under the LGPL.
Thread beginning with comment 351599
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: pyqt
by elsewhere on Wed 4th Mar 2009 06:28 UTC in reply to "RE: pyqt"
elsewhere
Member since:
2005-07-13

I think you may be waiting a long time. If there is already a high quality GPL'd version of a Python binding for Qt, why would anyone want to spend entire man-years redoing a new one with a slightly different license?


I think you're overstating it a bit. Riverbank is mostly a one-man operation. I don't want to understate the work involved, but I don't think it would amount to man-years to duplicate if someone or some group was intent on doing so.

Riverbank has every right to continue with the GPL/commercial model that Qt had. PyQt is a fine, and popular, product.

BUT, I suspect the LGPL announcement took the wind out of their sails. Compared to the license fee for Qt, a PyQt commerical license was incremental for commercial development. While it is still nominal in the overall scheme of things, at least in terms of commercial developers that measure value by ROI rather than absolute cost, it now stands out amongst an LGPL'd Qt field with LGPL'd bindings for other languages.

I don't begrudge Riverbank's model, all the more power to them for the time and effort they've extended over the years, I just suspect that they're going to have to figure out how to adapt to the new licensing scheme while still remaining viable. Nature abhors a vacuum, and I'd be surprised if an alternative didn't spring up otherwise.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: pyqt
by Richard Dale on Wed 4th Mar 2009 11:19 in reply to "RE[2]: pyqt"
Richard Dale Member since:
2005-07-22

[q]I think you may be waiting a long time. If there is already a high quality GPL'd version of a Python binding for Qt, why would anyone want to spend entire man-years redoing a new one with a slightly different license?


I think you're overstating it a bit. Riverbank is mostly a one-man operation. I don't want to understate the work involved, but I don't think it would amount to man-years to duplicate if someone or some group was intent on doing so.

You're welcome to believe what you like about the man effort involved in writing high quality complete bindings for the Qt apis.

I speak as the developer of several Qt language bindings (QtJava, QtRuby and Qyoto C#), and should have some idea of how much work is involved. For instance, I've been working on QtRuby for over five years, including 2 years full time, and I can tell you that I still have a big todo list.

There are python bindings based on PyQt for KDE too, and any replacement project would need to replace that work too, while managing to keep the community on their side.

Reply Parent Score: 4