Home > Qt > “C++ GUI Programming with Qt 3” Book Download “C++ GUI Programming with Qt 3” Book Download Submitted by Anonymous 2004-10-28 Qt 22 Comments The C++ GUI Programming with Qt 3 book written by Trolltech software engineer Jasmin Blanchette and Trolltech’s documentation manager Mark Summerfield, can now be downloaded in PDF format from the publisher’s homepage in the “Downloads” section. About The Author Eugenia Loli Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker. Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 22 Comments 2004-10-28 9:27 pm It’s always great to hear about free books. I’ll look at this when I get the chance and order it if I see that is really worth the money. 2004-10-28 9:52 pm 🙂 It’s a good book, if you want to program in C++ and Qt when go fetch. 2004-10-28 10:31 pm does anyone know a similar book but for C and GTK 2004-10-28 11:02 pm http://www.nostarch.com/frameset.php?startat=gnome_foundation 2004-10-29 1:22 am I just checked to see if the QT library was part of the download, and it unfortunately isn’t. So if the you want the QT non-commercial library (for windows) you still have to buy the book. (or use the very old version you can get from trolltech) -Troels, who just want the library, not the book 🙁 2004-10-29 3:21 am I checked out the “Compare Similar Books” links and found the above mentioned book is also available for download at http://phptr.com/title/0131453483. No CD contents with it, either, but what do you expect for free from a company that makes money by selling these things? 2004-10-29 3:23 am but what do you expect for free from a company that makes money by selling these things? Ooohhh, I may regret asking that question. 2004-10-29 3:49 am Until they release a GPL version of it for Windows I no longer use, support or reccomend QT for anyone. Until the playing field is leveled out and everyone regardless of platform is supported I have discontinued support for QT. 2004-10-29 4:11 am That’s got to be one of the stupidest posts ever. I mean, why do *they* have to do the port to win32? The X11 GTK+ guys didn’t do the win32 port either! They have *a* win32 port. Noone is stopping you, or anyone who really gives a damn, from writing the roughly 10KLOC required to make your very own win32 port. Further, you canleave about 98% ofQt’s code untouched since the platform-dependent code is nicely modularized. The very fact of such a port’s feeble existence (there is a start, but it has languished) show it’s not too important. If it itched, people would be scratching. 2004-10-29 5:41 am I, possibly for one, find some good in not having a free qt for windows. It seems like almost any program on linux will almost inevitably be ported to windows, but the reverse is more of an exception than a rule. qt greatly increases the difficulty of a windows port, and might be seen as helping keep some programs as linux/osx only. 2004-10-29 8:02 am There is a port in progress for a GPL version of QT on Windows using the native Win32 API. http://kde-cygwin.sourceforge.net/qt3-win32/compile-mingw.php I haven’t tried it myself since i don’t run Windows, but it looks promising. 2004-10-29 9:41 am I like Qt. I like C++ GUI programming, it seems natural to me… just downloaded the book (21.8MB). Next post after reading it all. I suggest everyone who likes to improve his C++ knowledge and gain new skills in API design to read the book. You’ll see some state-of-the-art programming tricks. 2004-10-29 11:19 am hope someone finds this useful: http://safariexamples.informit.com/0131240722/ 2004-10-29 2:29 pm Some monthes ago [May-]I emailed to Trollteck about QT/X11 free license (QT3), They were very kind in repling my questions. As I understood , if I create a closed OS based on a modded KDE on top of it, and all softwares QT based are released under GPL , I couldn’t because I can’t distribute open source software with the proprietary (closed source) software. I needed a commercial QT license! I already get this book…but free QT/X11 are really GPL? I think “yes” and “not”. Because afaik I think I could afford that closed OS ‘project’ if it was GTK/GNOME based (all GPL software provided with code not so for closed software)… I like QT and KDE…but after those Trolltech emails, I really not sure about what I can do…( and so if I prefer GTK or QT). Then, and here I can be wrong ^_^; as I understand if I improve QT/X11,with my GPL work, because of QPL license Trolltech can bring my work in their QT package, even the commercial one…where someone can develope closed software. GPL doesn’ t permit so… So I think another time the QT is not really 100% GPL. It looks to me more of a hybrid license (in fact last time I see it was GPL/QPL). BTW there where some changes in statements at Trolltech site in faqs about licenses…). Maybe if I re-email them, something could have been changed! …sorry for my English. —  even if QT based applications are putted on…let’s say…a ftp site. 2004-10-29 3:16 pm They can only change the licence if you give permission or you assign the copyright to them. Of course, they won’t include the changes into the main distribution unless you do so, your options are having your own fork or allow them to use the changes as they please. 2004-10-29 3:18 pm >So I think another time the QT is not really 100% GPL. >It looks to me more of a hybrid license (in fact last time I >see it was GPL/QPL). You might want to read this: http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/viewMyth.php?mythID=10 2004-10-29 3:29 pm “The Bruce Perens Open Source Series is designed to give a voice to up-and-coming Open Source authors. Each book in the series is published under the Open Publication License (www.opencontent.org), an Open Source compatible book license. Electronic versions will be made available at no cost.” You can check it here: http://phptr.com/series/series.asp?ser=335494 2004-10-29 6:01 pm Some monthes ago [May-]I emailed to Trollteck about QT/X11 free license (QT3), They were very kind in repling my questions. As I understood , if I create a closed OS based on a modded KDE on top of it, and all softwares QT based are released under GPL , I couldn’t because I can’t distribute open source software with the proprietary (closed source) software. I needed a commercial QT license! This is not entirely true, and certainly is no more the case than it would be with GTK. It’s possible that you cannot distribute a free QT linked against a non-free OS, i.e. your libc, windowing system etc. need to be free. But anything that isn’t touched by QT can be distributed under a non-free license alongside the GPL version of QT. The one place gtk does have the edge is if you are building non-free software on top of it – if you use an unmodified gtk, you can distribute non-free software built on gtk, which you can’t with the GPL version of QT. But RMS and others would say that makes Qt more free than gtk, not less. Then, and here I can be wrong ^_^; as I understand if I improve QT/X11,with my GPL work, because of QPL license Trolltech can bring my work in their QT package, even the commercial one…where someone can develope closed software. GPL doesn’ t permit so… So I think another time the QT is not really 100% GPL. It looks to me more of a hybrid license (in fact last time I see it was GPL/QPL). Any patches you submit to trolltech would be included in their commercial as well as the gpl version. However, if you don’t want to do that you can maintain the patch separately, or fork the gpl version to make your own widget toolkit. 2004-10-29 7:31 pm Until they release a GPL version of it for Windows I no longer use, support or reccomend QT for anyone. Until the playing field is leveled out and everyone regardless of platform is supported I have discontinued support for QT. Windows is not a platform that is built on the GPL. Until it is I see no reason for the porting of any GPL’d software to it. 2004-10-29 8:43 pm It’s possible that you cannot distribute a free QT linked against a non-free OS, i.e. your libc, windowing system etc. need to be free. The GPL has this to say about that issue: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. This seems to open up a big discussion as to what constitutes the major components of the operating system. This doesn’t mean that you can’t make a GPL compatible program that links to a NON-GPL library, even if it isn’t part of the OS. You would just have to add a clause to the license allowing it. (which is of course impossible unless you are the copyright holder, or gets the accept of all the copyright holders) As for the current example, i can’t see why you wouldn’t be able to ship a free QT for a closed source OS, if you can get one of them to compile that is. 🙂 2004-10-29 10:40 pm is language… Lib has nice API and is technicaly very good, the only problem is C++. I think is the worse language widely used ever. 1) It is too complicated… Every programmer can easy fail C++ exam with multibase polimorphism, templates, exceptions and dozens of features which are as powerful as you can simply hang yourself up… 2) C++ has poor integration with other tools and languages. Proof – tons of bridge code when you want to base scripting on or link with other soft… 3) Poor compilers. Compilation takes hours and avery code change forces re-compilation of milions od modules… QT based on better OO language is my dream… 2004-10-29 11:10 pm Thank you all for replies. ————————————— @ By Re: No OT >They can only change the licence if you give permission Maybe you are right or maybe it is a misunderstanding born when I read (and something has changed at their site from last time I saw it) http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/license_gpl.html?cid=20 “It is necessary for the X11 version of Qt to remain available under the QPL” http://www.trolltech.com/licenses/qpl.html?cid=20 “When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer.” ———————————————- @Anonymous Thanks…but I still have some doubts…not about if QT reinforces GPL software, but that I want to create a Linux distribution like old SuSE, where you CAN’T distribute images to anyone (only personal use, i.e. not copies for companies) because there is, let say…a non free OS-component like Yast. With GPL I can…! With QT GPL/QPL it’s not clear…or in other words, the fact is the I have understood I *can’t* because it’s not a free software (my whole OS)… OS itself is *not* linux but: Yast*like+ Linux kernel+KDE ecc… that is: whole OS is *not* free software. When some monthes ago I emailed Trolltech about what they *wrote* on their *site* on how to differentiate QT commercial and free edition, like: “Build software that is not sold, but that advances the business goals of a commercial enterprise” they replied me that they were in the process of modifying those statements because they were not entirely correct. Nevertheless…with 100% GPL software I *can* create an ex-SuSE-like ditribution…without need to buy a license ($ *000 too much for some people to just tring such business)…, *but* with QT…I have understood I can’t…that’s why I think QT reinforce GPL software…and why I think Stallman like it…: all GPL free redistributable software. Zero *sell* cost in many case, in that case I can use QT/Free for such an all free-OS. But if I create a good distro and I want to differentiate from a simple free-download edition making it a good commercial OS (adding ex-like-Yastos components)… I have understood that with QT apps I have to *pay*…even if *I* release all code of those QT and other GPL software). QT maybe is/was not 100% GPL. Dot. —————————————— @Troels > i can’t see why you wouldn’t be able > to ship a free QT for a closed source OS, if > you can get one of them to compile that is Heh… http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/freeware/index.html “Shipped with Solaris 9 OS Community (not Sun) supported! “KDE” “Sun did not develop any of the freeware products (“Products”) contained on the Solaris 9 Software Companion CD and has no ownership interest in them. Sun is making the Products available for free and as a convenience to our customers.” …develop… In fact I have understood that someone can PUT free software (and also QT applications) ON…let say an OS…even a *commercial* Linux one…he can! But DEVELOP is different from simply PUT ON. It ,may imply need of QT commercial. QT reinforces GPL software… The following is omnly an example ^_^; : If I want to create my ditribution and preventing anyone from free downloading my let’s say good wor, I achieve that by a ex-Yast alike non-free escamotage, [i.e. I’d like people to buy this OS (and OS!=Linux kernel), because I want to *sell* software, not doing *services* on it] If I could afford that YAST-alike-OS project with free QT/X11, I considered QT 100% GPL, but I have understood this is not the case, I have to buy a commercial license. Applications like ex-Yast can live togheter with GPL software… but in QT there is distinction about free and not free involving in commercial license. In 100% GPL…there is only free software.. but never mind if cohabit with non-GPL, or better: there is distinction from “mere aggregation and combining two modules” http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation — I like possibility to do commercial QT software (and so paying Trolltech for that)…but when I thinK about I *can’t* (afaik) do an ex SuSE-like distro containing QT apps… using only QT free license (the one GPL?) even if all those QT apps came with source, in the end I guess it is not 100% GPL.