> On Nov 9, 2016, at 3:40 PM, Aleix Pol <[email protected]> wrote: >>> we plan to keep it >>> multiplatform and with no external dependency other than Qt modules (that's >>> what KDE framework tier 1 means). A big reason is actually that it would be >>> quite easier to contribute to it. >> >> And when we do the work ourselves because we'll eventually have to, your >> work will be obsoleted and have been for nothing because no one will have a >> reason to use it when the upstream solution will be maintained by the Qt >> Project and on by default. Whereas if we work *together*, no one wastes time >> and we have a unified experience for everyone. >> >> All this does is fragment Qt, and look how well fragmentation has worked for >> Android. > > I don't think this is the correct way to have this conversation. > > Threatening that if things are developed outside Qt licensing policies > we're breaking the Qt project is way out of line, especially > considering the long collaboration history we've had between KDE and > Qt.
There's a big difference between creating a new module that provides completely new functionality (in which case it would be disappointing yet completely fair to keep it out of the Qt Project if that's your choice), and adding a missing feature to an existing Qt module while deliberately keeping it out of the hands of the Qt Project and its commercial customers who pay for Qt to exist in the first place. That's rather selfish, and also rather shortsighted, because we WILL have to do this ourselves eventually if we want anyone to take QQC2 seriously. So why duplicate the work and let it all go to waste? > > Aleix -- Jake Petroules - [email protected] The Qt Company - Silicon Valley Qbs build tool evangelist - qbs.io _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
