Qt-interest Archive, March 2002
Qt non commercial for Windows version 3.0
Message 1 in thread
Hi,
Is the 3.0 Qt version planned to be available as non commercial for Windows ?
In the trolltech internet page, I can only get the 2.3 version.
TIA,
Stephane
http://www.exotk.org
Message 2 in thread
No. Not at this moment. Have you considered
wxWindows? Not as polished as Qt, but its free for
all platforms.
Salman
--- Stephane Routelous <routeloushmi@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is the 3.0 Qt version planned to be available as non
> commercial for Windows ?
> In the trolltech internet page, I can only get the
> 2.3 version.
http://qt-interest.trolltech.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
Message 3 in thread
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Salman Khilji wrote:
> No. Not at this moment. Have you considered
> wxWindows? Not as polished as Qt, but its free for
> all platforms.
>
> Salman
>
>
Or how about just Qt 2.3 non commercial (let's try and sell the subject of
this mailing list... :-) ) That in itself has got far and above the
features one would expect in a GUI toolkit. I'm using it for a
free-software project of my own, anyway...
Nick
Message 4 in thread
Hi all,
> > No. Not at this moment. Have you considered
> > wxWindows? Not as polished as Qt, but its free for
> > all platforms.
> Or how about just Qt 2.3 non commercial (let's try and sell the subject of
> this mailing list... :-) ) That in itself has got far and above the
> features one would expect in a GUI toolkit. I'm using it for a
> free-software project of my own, anyway...
I was actually pleased to see this "provocation", because I hoped it might
bring out a troll that could tell us when we can expect a 3.0.x non-
commercial version to be released.
.Jess
Message 5 in thread
On Thursday 07 March 2002 04:45 am, you wrote:
> Or how about just Qt 2.3 non commercial (let's try and sell the subject of
> this mailing list... :-) ) That in itself has got far and above the
> features one would expect in a GUI toolkit. I'm using it for a
> free-software project of my own, anyway...
>
> Nick
I've had a fair amount of luck taking new things in QT3 out of the
open-source X11 QT3 distrubution and backporting them to run on QT2, since
most of the system specifics are already abstracted by the time you get to
the higher levels. Specifically, I yanked QHttp out of QT3 and have it
running smoothly on top of QT2 on both linux and Win32. Thought about doing
this with QRegExp as well, but haven't tried it yet.
Ken
Message 6 in thread
On March 8, 2002 12:00, Ken Cecka wrote:
> On Thursday 07 March 2002 04:45 am, you wrote:
> > Or how about just Qt 2.3 non commercial (let's try and sell the subject
> > of this mailing list... :-) ) That in itself has got far and above the
> > features one would expect in a GUI toolkit. I'm using it for a
> > free-software project of my own, anyway...
> >
> > Nick
>
> I've had a fair amount of luck taking new things in QT3 out of the
> open-source X11 QT3 distrubution and backporting them to run on QT2, since
> most of the system specifics are already abstracted by the time you get to
> the higher levels. Specifically, I yanked QHttp out of QT3 and have it
> running smoothly on top of QT2 on both linux and Win32. Thought about
> doing this with QRegExp as well, but haven't tried it yet.
>
> Ken
Hi,
are you allowed to do that ( regarding the Qt license ) ?
Stephane
Message 7 in thread
> >
> > I've had a fair amount of luck taking new things in QT3 out of the
> > open-source X11 QT3 distrubution and backporting them to run on QT2,
since
> > most of the system specifics are already abstracted by the time you
get to
> > the higher levels. Specifically, I yanked QHttp out of QT3 and have
it
> > running smoothly on top of QT2 on both linux and Win32. Thought
about
> > doing this with QRegExp as well, but haven't tried it yet.
> >
> > Ken
>
> Hi,
>
> are you allowed to do that ( regarding the Qt license ) ?
>
> Stephane
>
The code backported from the X11 free edition would be under the GPL,
thus forcing every application using them to be under the GPL (or a
license granting the same freedom), too. The non commercial license is
not compatible with the GPL, so you can actually not do/release anything
with the backport (as an application linking against the non commercial
edition can't be GPL'ed) although the backport itself doesn't violate
any license.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 8 in thread
> The code backported from the X11 free edition would be under the GPL,
> thus forcing every application using them to be under the GPL (or a
> license granting the same freedom), too. The non commercial license is
> not compatible with the GPL, so you can actually not do/release anything
> with the backport (as an application linking against the non commercial
> edition can't be GPL'ed) although the backport itself doesn't violate
> any license.
Actually one can create a GPLed program with non-commercial, but needs to
grant linking with nc .dll without distributing the nc source (which, of
course, we poor free software developers don't have :o) )
The problem with backporting is exactly that, we can't change the license
from the x11 edition to include that permission as we are not copyright
holders ;)
Of course, if you port the whole thing, then no license changes would be
required.
Message 9 in thread
On Saturday 09 March 2002 06:38 am, Thiago A. Correa wrote:
> > The code backported from the X11 free edition would be under the GPL,
> > thus forcing every application using them to be under the GPL (or a
> > license granting the same freedom), too. The non commercial license is
> > not compatible with the GPL, so you can actually not do/release anything
> > with the backport (as an application linking against the non commercial
> > edition can't be GPL'ed) although the backport itself doesn't violate
> > any license.
>
> Actually one can create a GPLed program with non-commercial, but needs to
> grant linking with nc .dll without distributing the nc source (which, of
> course, we poor free software developers don't have :o) )
>
> The problem with backporting is exactly that, we can't change the license
> from the x11 edition to include that permission as we are not copyright
> holders ;)
> Of course, if you port the whole thing, then no license changes would be
> required.
OK, this is sounding familiar. I thought I remembered some discussions on
incompatibilities in the NCE. I don't think this would preclude me from
distributing my application in source form since it is perfectly legal to
compile and link it agains the X11 version of QT, and an individual would be
within their rights to make a personal Win32 compile but not distribute it.
The other alternative (assuming Trolltech doesn't release a NCE QT3 some time
soon) is to write my own QHttp and avoid the whole issue completely.
Ken
Message 10 in thread
On Friday 08 March 2002 11:50 am, Stephane Routelous wrote:
> On March 8, 2002 12:00, Ken Cecka wrote:
> > On Thursday 07 March 2002 04:45 am, you wrote:
> > > Or how about just Qt 2.3 non commercial (let's try and sell the subject
> > > of this mailing list... :-) ) That in itself has got far and above the
> > > features one would expect in a GUI toolkit. I'm using it for a
> > > free-software project of my own, anyway...
> > >
> > > Nick
> >
> > I've had a fair amount of luck taking new things in QT3 out of the
> > open-source X11 QT3 distrubution and backporting them to run on QT2,
> > since most of the system specifics are already abstracted by the time you
> > get to the higher levels. Specifically, I yanked QHttp out of QT3 and
> > have it running smoothly on top of QT2 on both linux and Win32. Thought
> > about doing this with QRegExp as well, but haven't tried it yet.
> >
> > Ken
>
> Hi,
>
> are you allowed to do that ( regarding the Qt license ) ?
>
> Stephane
I haven't given it too much thought, but as I understand it, the X11
free releases are under the GPL, which means I am free to do whatever I want
with the source code as long as I distribute my modifications in source form.
I know there are some issues with the Win32 NCE license not being compatible
with the GPL, so there may be some conflicts there (please enlighten me if
there are), but I haven't worried about it too much since the code in
question is a custom app written for use by my Dad, so it's not in general
distribution at the moment. If I decide to release it on the web I'll have
to worry about that a bit more though.
Ken
