Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Mar 2011 15:50 UTC, submitted by Geoff Floding
Qt Since the web has a tendency to overstate things: no, Nokia is not selling Qt. Today, Nokia announced that Digia will acquire the Qt Commercial software licensing and professional services business from Nokia. So I repeat: Nokia is not selling Qt.
Thread beginning with comment 465063
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
A good thing for Qt
by Praxis on Mon 7th Mar 2011 16:54 UTC
Praxis
Member since:
2009-09-17

Since I suspect Nokia's interest in Qt will dry up the moment they ship their last symbian device, I'm glad that they are divesting some of their interest in Qt to other companies. This should clear up some developer anxiety about the future of Qt on the desktop.

Reply Score: 4

RE: A good thing for Qt
by sorpigal on Mon 7th Mar 2011 17:15 in reply to "A good thing for Qt"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

No, Meego also uses Qt now and it appears that some Meego devices are still coming out of Nokia.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: A good thing for Qt
by Praxis on Mon 7th Mar 2011 17:42 in reply to "RE: A good thing for Qt"
Praxis Member since:
2009-09-17

They aren't planning to release even near enough Meego devices to justify current Qt expenditures. Once Symbian is gone, there is simply no financial reason to spend as much on Qt as they do now. Even if they keep of small team of Qt devs in house the effect will be much the same.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: A good thing for Qt
by Carewolf on Mon 7th Mar 2011 20:01 in reply to "A good thing for Qt"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

This might be the road to the solution. Nokia only had a strategic interest in mobile Qt anyway, KDE and now Digia have an interest in desktop Qt.
The development of Qt has already been made more public by Nokia by using gitorious and a public bug-tracker. The last missing piece is perhaps a more open governance of Qt.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: A good thing for Qt
by vodoomoth on Wed 9th Mar 2011 11:45 in reply to "RE: A good thing for Qt"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

The last missing piece is perhaps a more open governance of Qt.

Which would be what? What form would that "more open governance" take?

Reply Parent Score: 2