On 31/3/20 6:09 am, Roland Hughes wrote:
Just be aware that UltraEdit like many other PC originating editors
gets tabs wrong. When you set tabs to spaces and set their width to 4,
hitting when cursor is in first column of the line has to put
the cursor in column 4, not 5 like far too many PC e
On 3/31/20 1:21 PM, interest-requ...@qt-project.org wrote:
Note: I don’t speak in the name of my cie, but my own opinion here. Just
stating the fact that the Qt license is the main reason we often ditch Qt for
some application.
The same reason it is being ditched wholesale by lots of places.
On 3/31/20 12:49 AM, interest-requ...@qt-project.org wrote:
I guess the conflicting terms are these:
“Prohibited Combination” shall mean any means to (i) use, combine, incorporate, link
or integrate Licensed Software with any software created with or incorporating Open
Source Qt, (ii) use Lic
I sent this the other day but it hasn't made it into the list yet. At
least I haven't seen it. Forwarding because it is pertinent
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt,
Commercial developers
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:09:42 -
All,
Man, an entire day compiling from source.
./configure -opensource -confirm-license -release -skip qtwebengine
-opengl desktop -qt-sqlite -qt-zlib -qt-libjpeg -qt-libpng -qt-freetype
-qt-pcre -qt-harfbuzz -nomake examples -nomake tests -prefix
/usr/local/qt-5-14-1 -platform win32-g++ -sil
On 3/30/20 1:03 PM, Andy wrote:
That makes no sense. Your license prevents a company from using an
open-source tool? It says "if you license our stuff you cannot use the
open-source tool X"?
This whole thread is yet another great example of where the Qt Company is
totally tone-deaf.
Nobody und
It's not just you.
On 3/27/20 9:03 AM, interest-requ...@qt-project.org wrote:
Hi,
is it just me or this is heading into the wrong way, or at least into the
opposite direction of the market. Most IDE are now free, even the embedded
world start giving IDE away:
xCode is free
vs code is free
A
Hi,
To me your example does not sound problematic assuming that your application is
like a typical app - a clearly different thing than the store that sells apps
(the store sells a lot of different apps and your is in no way relevant for
operating the store etc).
Also, for any particular real
Hi,
This disclaimer is because every case can be a bit special. We are trying to
avoid a case where someone clearly violates the license and then comes with
explanation, because N.N. said years ago that ABCDC is ok.
The basic rules are simple:
- If you use Qt under open-source, check what LGPL
Hi,
Note that I am not a lawyer, and also note that a generic comment may not be
applicable in a specific case. If there is a company who wants to clarify their
usage of Qt, it is best done by directly talking about that case. Remember,
that the restriction on mixing is only relevant when Qt i
> The key point is: The Qt Company, just like Trolltech initially and other
> companies in between, does not want mixing open-source Qt and commercial Qt.
> Reason is simple: if mixing was allowed, many companies would use it to pay
> less for their use of Qt.
> It is unfortunate that also real o
31.03.2020, 22:57, "Bernhard Lindner" :
> Hi Tuukka!
>
>> I have also tried to explain these, but your tone feels rather aggressive.
>> I do not
>> understand what makes you say: “Even a solo developer needs to hire a
>> lawyer before
>> touching anything Qt-related.”
>
> Because this is wha
Hi Tuukka!
> I have also tried to explain these, but your tone feels rather aggressive. I
> do not
> understand what makes you say: “Even a solo developer needs to hire a lawyer
> before
> touching anything Qt-related.”
Because this is what users hear in MLs and forums, when they ask about Qt
Regarding 5. :
> Large company F is creating a product with Qt under commercial license.
Part of the work is subcontracted to Company G that uses Qt under
commercial license. Company G subcontracts some of the work further to
low-cost Company H, who uses Qt under open-source license. This is not
Den tis 31 mars 2020 kl 20:46 skrev Elvis Stansvik :
>
> Den tis 31 mars 2020 kl 20:40 skrev Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest
> :
> >
> > Il 31/03/20 20:34, Elvis Stansvik ha scritto:
> > > Do you see the absurdity? For me as manager at F, to be sure we're not
> > > breaking the contract with Frob, w
Den tis 31 mars 2020 kl 20:40 skrev Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest
:
>
> Il 31/03/20 20:34, Elvis Stansvik ha scritto:
> > Do you see the absurdity? For me as manager at F, to be sure we're not
> > breaking the contract with Frob, we would have to stipulate our
> > contract with G not only that the
Il 31/03/20 20:34, Elvis Stansvik ha scritto:
Do you see the absurdity? For me as manager at F, to be sure we're not
breaking the contract with Frob, we would have to stipulate our
contract with G not only that they themselves stick with paid-support
Frob tools, but that they in turn must stipula
Den tis 31 mars 2020 kl 19:32 skrev Tuukka Turunen :
>
>
>
> Hi Jérôme et al,
>
>
>
> This thread has long ago left the original question and become a discussion
> about Qt licensing in general and especially about the point of not mixing
> commercial Qt with open-source version of Qt.
>
>
>
> Th
31.03.2020, 20:34, "Tuukka Turunen" :
> Hi Jérôme et al,
>
> This thread has long ago left the original question and become a discussion
> about Qt licensing in general and especially about the point of not mixing
> commercial Qt with open-source version of Qt.
>
> The key point is: The Qt Comp
> ...
>
> Example 6: Company I is building two independent products with separate
> development teams. One development team uses Qt under commercial license to
> create product 1 and the other development team uses Qt under open-source
> license to create product 2. This is ok.
> Hopefully I was
On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 18:02:15 BST Tuukka Turunen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I apologise, if I have been unclear with words 'company' and project'. If
> you read the license agreement and faq behind the links I have posted
> multiple times, it should be rather clear what is meant.
> Yours,
>
>
Hi Jérôme et al,
This thread has long ago left the original question and become a discussion
about Qt licensing in general and especially about the point of not mixing
commercial Qt with open-source version of Qt.
The key point is: The Qt Company, just like Trolltech initially and other
compa
Hi,
I apologise, if I have been unclear with words 'company' and project'. If you
read the license agreement and faq behind the links I have posted multiple
times, it should be rather clear what is meant.
Yours,
Tuukka
On 31.3.2020, 18.50, "Roland Hughes" wrote:
I sent
Hi,
the mix is not a corner case, it’s the reality of many people around. We are a
services compagnie, and this is really a headache to understand where it should
fall since we do project for client but we are a single cie. The license of Qt
have is such an ambiguity and our lawyer recommend (no
Hi Andy,
You are asking to explicitly define terms like project, company, product. These
are rarely possible to define outside of the generic use of the term and each
individual contract. I assume you understand that it is not possible to take
any stand of those in an email. We have these liste
Il 31/03/20 15:35, Tuukka Turunen ha scritto:
The point of the "Prohibited combination" is to prevent a company or a chain of
companies (like in a typical subcontracting scenario) from making part of the product
with non-paid Qt and part with paid. Qt being as defined in the commercial license
> "This is at the moment not listed as an allowed case..."
And this again is here the Qt company is digging it's own grave.
What constitutes a "product"? If a company has one team working on an open
source library and another team using it in a proprietary application -
what then? What if an inte
Hi,
The point of the "Prohibited combination" is to prevent a company or a chain of
companies (like in a typical subcontracting scenario) from making part of the
product with non-paid Qt and part with paid. Qt being as defined in the
commercial license agreement, i.e. including tools and frame
??
-Original Message-
From: Tuukka Turunen
To: Thiago Macieira ; interest
Sent: Tue, Mar 31, 2020 01:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Interest] Qt Creator licensing for companies with Qt Commercial
developers
Hi Thiago,
As I wrote a bit earlier, for completely independent projects/produc
Hi Thiago,
As I wrote a bit earlier, for completely independent projects/products it is
fine that one is using commercial and one open-source. This is much more likely
to happen in a big corporation than a small company, but possible scenario in
both.
Note that these really should not be sam
On 3/31/20 1:22 PM, Tuukka Turunen wrote:
For completely independent projects/products this is fine. Note that these
really should not be same or in practice the same - or in any way depending,
relating, using etc each other as defined in the license agreement.
See licensing FAQ question 2.7 a
On Monday, 30 March 2020 16:59:11 -03 Elvis Stansvik wrote:
> > Please read the commercial license agreement and the licensing FAQ. The
> > restriction has nothing to do with open-source licensing. It is about a
> > company, who is using a commercially licensed Qt not to use parts of the
> > same l
On Tuesday, 31 March 2020 02:49:25 -03 praveen illa wrote:
> Thanks for your email.
>
> The linux kernel security issues are in control for our board. We will
> change it if required.
I didn't say security. I simply said "support". Are you getting updates from
your vendor?
And now that you ment
Hi,
For completely independent projects/products this is fine. Note that these
really should not be same or in practice the same - or in any way depending,
relating, using etc each other as defined in the license agreement.
See licensing FAQ question 2.7 at https://www.qt.io/faq/ and License
31.03.2020, 11:54, "Ramakanth Kesireddy" :
> Since the old compiler doesn't supports c++11, we got to use Qt WebKit 5.6.3
> only. However, we shall move to the latest 5.12 LTS once the compiler is
> upgraded.
>
> So ICS 59.2 would be compatible with Qt WebKit 5.6.3?
No, necessary patch wasn't
Since the old compiler doesn't supports c++11, we got to use Qt WebKit
5.6.3 only. However, we shall move to the latest 5.12 LTS once the compiler
is upgraded.
So ICS 59.2 would be compatible with Qt WebKit 5.6.3?
On Tue, 31 Mar, 2020, 12:50 Konstantin Tokarev, wrote:
>
>
> 31.03.2020, 05:32, "
31.03.2020, 05:32, "Ramakanth Kesireddy" :
> Thanks for your mail.
> Can you let me know any specific version of ICU that shall be compatible with
> Qt WebKit 5.6.3?
If you use 5.9 branch (which you really have no reason not to use, AFAICS),
it's 59.2
--
Regards,
Konstantin
37 matches
Mail list logo
