m: "Markus Maier"
> To: interest
> Subject: Re: [Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
>
> I stumbled upon these two EPIC's in JIRA today - the first was
> recently updated, the second one is two days old now:
> https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-72086
> https://bugrep
I stumbled upon these two EPIC's in JIRA today - the first was
recently updated, the second one is two days old now:
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-72086
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-74049
So while there is currently no commitment to start a bigger
development task, it seems that t
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 2:59 PM
> From: "Richard Weickelt"
> To: interest@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
>
> > Your every response has indicated this will not happen, just that mobile
> > will follow the other platf
> Cc: interestqt-project. org
> Subject: Re: [Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
>
> Ok, thanks for clarifying that.
> It's not just me though, there are *many* people using Qt that have +1d me
> and stated that they agree with me. Your customer survey reported 20% using
> Mo
it to adding
the missing Mobile APIs.
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 12:03 PM
> From: "Tuukka Turunen"
> To: "Jason H"
> Cc: "Bernhard B" , "interestqt-project. org"
>
> Subject: Re: [Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
>
>
&
> Your every response has indicated this will not happen, just that mobile
> will follow the other platforms. I don't understand why Qt won't commit
> to adding the missing Mobile APIs.
The company is a joint stock company with the sole purpose of making as much
profit as possible and filling the p
't commit to adding
the missing Mobile APIs.
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 12:03 PM
> From: "Tuukka Turunen"
> To: "Jason H"
> Cc: "Bernhard B" , "interestqt-project. org"
>
> Subject: Re: [Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
>
>
> I guess that amongst mobile developers this number is higher than for C++
yeah right, but I am not sure whether the majority of Qt developers (the
target group) want to deal with Java/Objective C.
e.q: I know quite a few C++ developers who hate Java with a passion. But I
don't want to start a
27.02.2019, 18:23, "Jason H" :
>Who knows Objective C and Java? Not many.
I guess that amongst mobile developers this number is higher than for C++
--
Regards,
Konstantin
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org
ting device APIs?
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 11:34 PM
> From: "Tuukka Turunen"
> To: "Jason H"
> Cc: "Bernhard B" , "interestqt-project. org"
> Subject: Re: [Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
>
>
to get Qt to commit to supporting device APIs?
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 11:34 PM
> From: "Tuukka Turunen"
> To: "Jason H"
> Cc: "Bernhard B" , "interestqt-project. org"
>
> Subject: Re: [Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
>
>
>
2019 at 11.06
To: Tuukka Turunen
Cc: Bernhard B , "interestqt-project. org"
Subject: Re: [Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
Tukka,
I don't think that there is a single Mobile user that finds your reply adequate.
It sounds like you're dragging Mobile users along. We need a specific m
*Sent:* Monday, February 25, 2019 at 2:48 PM
> *From:* "Bernhard B"
> *To:* "Jason H"
> *Cc:* "Tuukka Turunen" , "interestqt-project. org" <
> interest@qt-project.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
> definitely a +1 from m
e their own needs, and I'm in favor of us together coming up with that list, and having Qt commit to the top item(s) each release. That's what I mean when I say I want a transparent roadmap for mobile.
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 at 3:20 AM
From: "Tuukka Turunen"
just a
> 80/20. Other developers have their own needs, and I'm in favor of us
> together coming up with that list, and having Qt commit to the top item(s)
> each release. That's what I mean when I say I want a transparent roadmap
> for mobile.
>
>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, Februa
for mobile.
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 at 3:20 AM
From: "Tuukka Turunen"
To: "Bernhard B" , "interestqt-project. org"
Subject: Re: [Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
Hi,
I focused mainly in the tooling and cross-platform features in the roadmap blog p
. org"
Subject: Re: [Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
Many thanks to Tuukka for the Qt Roadmap 2019 blog post
(https://blog.qt.io/blog/2019/02/22/qt-roadmap-2019/) - very much appreciated!
As the mobile part was not explicitly mentioned, I assume that it won't be a
focusing area for 2019 then? :
> On 22 Feb 2019, at 13:24, Bernhard B wrote:
>
> Many thanks to Tuukka for the Qt Roadmap 2019 blog post
> (https://blog.qt.io/blog/2019/02/22/qt-roadmap-2019/) - very much
> appreciated!
>
> As the mobile part was not explicitly mentioned, I assume that it won't be a
> focusing area for 2
Many thanks to Tuukka for the Qt Roadmap 2019 blog post (
https://blog.qt.io/blog/2019/02/22/qt-roadmap-2019/) - very much
appreciated!
As the mobile part was not explicitly mentioned, I assume that it won't be
a focusing area for 2019 then? :/
Jean-Michaël Celerier schrieb am Fr., 22.
Feb. 2019
> They even included, scripts to build the app. I'm not sure you have to go
quite that far to be compliant, but awesome nevertheless.
You explicitely have to:
LGPLv3 4. e): Provide Installation Information, but only if you would
otherwise be required to provide such information under section 6 of
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, 13:47 Jean-Michaël Celerier, <
jeanmichael.celer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cisco did it with an app that uses gstreamer (which is under LGPL) :
> https://itunes.apple.com/ua/app/cisco-jabber/id467192391?mt=8.
> They send it on request, with the proprietary part in a static lib (s
Cisco did it with an app that uses gstreamer (which is under LGPL) :
https://itunes.apple.com/ua/app/cisco-jabber/id467192391?mt=8.
They send it on request, with the proprietary part in a static lib (see at
the end here :
https://github.com/GStreamer/gst-plugins-good/blob/master/README.static-linki
Do you have one example of someone who put a LGPL app in the app store and
provided the binary object files?
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 3:58 PM Julius Bullinger
wrote:
> On 21.02.2019 15:44, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> > Qt is free (on mobile), free as in liberty, as long as your
> > application i
Well, this was my question here.
What makes you think, you violate the LGPL in this case?
>You *cannot* publish (for free or at a cost) Qt based proprietary SW
>on Google play store w/o a Qt license. It would violate the LGPL. The
>Qt license is a (costly) LGPL substitute.
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>>
>> /R
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 03:56, Julius Bullinger
wrote:
>
> On 21.02.2019 15:44, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> > Qt is free (on mobile), free as in liberty, as long as your
> > application is free, as in liberty.
> > That's basic (L)GPL rules.
> >
> > Now there's the business rules:
> > If you want y
On 21.02.2019 15:44, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
Qt is free (on mobile), free as in liberty, as long as your
application is free, as in liberty.
That's basic (L)GPL rules.
Now there's the business rules:
If you want your (mobile) app to be non-free (as in proprietary), then
you'll have to pay the
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 02:53, René Hansen wrote:
>
> You're reversing the burden of proof here. Where have Qt stated that it is
> non-free for mobile?
>
> The licensing terms are the same no matter the platform; Qt is LGPL or
> Commercial. It's up to you to adhere to whichever license you choose
From: "ich"
To: interest@qt-project.org, "Sylvain Pointeau" , "Qt Project"
Subject: Re: [Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
Thou shall not use sellers opinion as legal correct advice:)
qt.io tends to hide facts and even post wrong "facts"...
Am February 21,
Thou shall not use sellers opinion as legal correct advice:)
qt.io tends to hide facts and even post wrong "facts"...
Am February 21, 2019 1:49:21 PM UTC schrieb Sylvain Pointeau
:
>On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:30 PM Sylvain Pointeau
>
>wrote:
>
>> Qt is free on desktop, but it is not free on mobile
As you said, look at the license:)
You may git clone qt, read the LGPL license, accept it, and deploy your Android
app.
Just as you do with other LGPL code.
What else official do you need?
Yesterday i found worth reading:
https://wiki.qt.io/Licensing-talk-about-mobile-platforms
Am February 21,
You're reversing the burden of proof here. Where have Qt stated that it is
non-free for mobile?
The licensing terms are the same no matter the platform; Qt is LGPL or
Commercial. It's up to you to adhere to whichever license you choose to
utilise.
/René
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 14:50 Sylvain Poi
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:30 PM Sylvain Pointeau
wrote:
> Qt is free on desktop, but it is not free on mobile, which is a real
> showstopper for me and many others.
>
> Le mar. 19 févr. 2019 à 20:12, ich a écrit :
>
>> Qt is free, too.
>>
>
I received few personal emails to ask me why am I writi
st work*. :-)
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 8:39 PM
From: "ich"
To: No recipient address
Cc: interest@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
OK, i've no idea about how to deploy to mobile devices,
but what makes you think its not free?
Am February 19, 201
ould be found there.
>>>>
>>>> But losing new doesn't really change my opinion of if it's
>declarative
>>>> or not.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the update/correction though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday
ound there.
>>>
>>> But losing new doesn't really change my opinion of if it's declarative
>>> or not.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the update/correction though.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 1:34 PM
>>&g
important should be found there.
>>
>> But losing new doesn't really change my opinion of if it's
>declarative or
>> not.
>>
>> Thanks for the update/correction though.
>>
>>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 1:34 PM
>> *From:* &qu
though.
>
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 1:34 PM
> *From:* "Sylvain Pointeau"
> *To:* "Qt Project"
> *Subject:* [Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
> the "new" is now removed in dart 2.0 so you example is outdated.
>
>
> --
larative or not.
Thanks for the update/correction though.
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 1:34 PM
From: "Sylvain Pointeau"
To: "Qt Project"
Subject: [Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
the "new" is now removed in dart 2.0 so you example is outdated.
-
the "new" is now removed in dart 2.0 so you example is outdated.
-- Message transféré -
De : Jason H
Date : mar. 19 févr. 2019 à 19:25
Objet : Re: [Interest] vs. Flutter
À : Bernhard B
CC :
I'm in your offtopic camp.
Everything is going Declarative. I really hate that web dev
39 matches
Mail list logo
