![KDE KDE](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topickde.gif)
![Open Source Open Source](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/opensource_64.png)
![Technology Technology](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/technology_64.png)
Nokia Announces Qt Open Governance Model 39
chill writes "Over the past year the Qt Developers have been working to sort out how they can make development of Qt even more inclusive and open. After exploring various options, they are now almost ready to go live with the new solution. It's taken a little longer than expected, but they are now very close to moving hosting of Qt to a new domain: qt-project.org [domain not yet live when posted]. The domain will be owned by a non-profit foundation whose only purpose is to host the infrastructure for the Qt project. More details of the changes are available at the Qt Open Governance Model wiki."
Lazy Consensus (Score:1)
I love their adherence to lazy consensus. You see here everyone, it's very important to be lazy!
FTA:
Re: (Score:2)
I love their adherence to lazy consensus.
I agree
Re: (Score:1)
He was joking around mostly... putting a lazy response to my comment about liking the lazy consensus is ironic.
One foot in? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a pleasant surprise. I had understood that Nokia had become entirely dependent on Windows Phone and was setting itself up to be acquired as Microsoft's mobile unit, but then why would they need Qt when MFC/.NET is readily available?
It sounds like somebody decided that they need to keep their options open, which is smart:
To mince the fine points with the submitter:
foundation whose only purpose is to host the infrastructure for the Qt project
There seems to be at least two things going on. The above statement is true:
But this is also different:
Yet, they recognize the elephant in the room and are open about it:
This license [nokia.com] has a few problems any contributing entity is going to feel leery about. Just a few that jump out:
I can see why Nokia wants to not imply they'll maintain a useless patchset forever, but they also have a potential strategic weapon against competitors here.
Re: (Score:1)
Supposedly, the new licence agreement is going to be better than the one you linked to.
http://labs.qt.nokia.com/2011/09/12/qt-project/#comment-27802
Switch platforms without switching apps (Score:2)
why would they need Qt when MFC/.NET is readily available?
To allow development of an application that runs on both Microsoft platforms and non-Microsoft platforms whose official developer tools don't include an implementation of CLR and Silverlight. If a single application can target both non-Microsoft platforms and Microsoft platforms, that'll let people switch to a Microsoft platform without having to give up applications. This is an advantage for Microsoft in a market where Microsoft is still like Shoeshine: an underdog. Now the core problem is that unmanaged p
Re: (Score:1)
This is a good way to scare off potential small contributors. I'm not going to agree to perhaps need to travel to Finland so I can submit a fifty line bugfix, how 'bout you?
It's about a 15 minute bus drive to Nokia HQ from where I live, so...
Re: (Score:2)
MFC is shit and .NET requires a VM. Qt is a much better choice when all you need is a barebones GUI application executable programmed quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree.
Nokia has reduced itself to being nothing more than a smartphone hardware manufacturer for Microsoft, but they still want to control, even if indirectly, Qt's development and contributions, even from volunteers. It doesn't matter where the code is hosted, it only matters WHO owns and controls the code. In other words, which license is used. That's why they've chosen the LGPL v2.1 By coding significant features or enhancements as proprietary binaries, it forces Qt to be LGPL in order to u
Re: (Score:2)
That would make sense if Nokia actually coded significant features or enhancements to Qt as proprietary binaries, which AFAIK is not the case.
Re: (Score:2)
IF that is true, that Nokia has not added any functionality, fixes, or enhancements as proprietary binary libraries, the there is nothing stopping KDE.org or any other FOSS project from forking the latest Qt 4.7.1 code, except that it was released as LGPL v2.1. So, KDE.org would have to revert to Qt 4.4, which was under the GPL, because Qt4.5 was released in January of 2009 under the LGPL
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so basically you have no fucking clue what's going on but like to post long, paranoid ramblings about Nokia infesting the LGPL Qt library with proprietary binary code while paying lip service to the FOSS community. It's called FUD, and you're a cunt.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Without violating the LGPL you can take an LGPL library, make some changes, and release the result under the GPL. This is explicity allowed by the license. In fact it is required if the code you add is GPL, you cannot release the result as LGPL.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. The RMS argument about libraries applies to Qt.
If Qt was GPL then it could not be used by non-GPL applications.
Now if Qt was the only toolkit in existence then this might do what RMS wants, which is force all software that needs a toolkit to be GPL.
However Qt is NOT the only toolkit in existence, and the desire to make non-GPL programs means there would be huge incentive to use something else.
This other thing would be learned by programmers and thus used even when a GPL Qt would have been acceptab
*cough* symbian *cough* (Score:1)
Isn't this what they tried to do with Symbian?
Let's hope they've learned some lessons and can apply them here. QT is one of the nicest C++ frameworks I've come across and it would be sad to see it's future mis-managed.
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded. The QT language itself is very mature, well-rounded, and includes things that C++ has sorely needed (decent string support, of all things, not to mention native threading...hell, even Java has built-in threading whereas plain C++ does not) The new QT Creator IDE is very nice as well. (the only drawback is that it's not in my distro's repositories so I have to manually install it) QT actual
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I doubt it. They devote an entire page to explaining why they don't use templates:
http://doc.qt.nokia.com/latest/templates.html [nokia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to see them drop all the STL and boost duplication and switch to standards as much as possible.
They don't have to drop MOC but it would be nice if they tried to figure out an equivalent that uses C++0x and macros.
The strings are not byte strings and therefore useless. This makes handling of UTF-8 and thus modern Unicode impossible because (like it or not) UTF-8 can contain invalid sequences and it is impossible to losslessly translate these to "wchar" or whatever crap they are using. It also ma
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, the leadership behind Qt is not the same as the leadership behind much of Nokia or even Symbian. They definitely have a better understanding of how to work with communities and do things in the open than Nokia does.
Re: (Score:2)
At the time they started coding Qt, STL was still very immature, even embryonic. So it's was not that brain-dead a decision back then.
Of course now it's a major nuisance.
Other one being their signal/slot implementation, with the inconvenient moc precompiler.
Qt is already pretty good, but with STL, std::string and boost::signals, it would be perfect.
Sad apathy. (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad apathy and silence around this move, and the Qt project, shows how far Slashdot's reader base has fallen from being interested in FOSS and open development models.
It's all about being treated as second-rate by Google these days, white knighting for Apple, or reading shit articles posted by samzenpus/kdawson/timothy.
Re: (Score:3)
...shows how far Slashdot's reader base has fallen from being interested in FOSS and open development models.
I've noticed that too. That and the tendency of comments to veer off into discussions unrelated to the article, only to degenerate into exchanges of insults. /. was reported in a story a week ago as being among the dying websites. It's easy to see why.
Re: (Score:3)
I've noticed that too. That and the tendency of comments to veer off into discussions unrelated to the article, only to degenerate into exchanges of insults. /. was reported in a story a week ago as being among the dying websites. It's easy to see why.
Maybe because you've provided two of the most clueless comments on this article, taking it very much off track with a zany conspiracy theory? You're not exactly pulling the average up, you know. But I guess that counts like an insult.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think a lot of people may have written off QT for dead. With Nokia becoming a glorified Microsoft lacky, most of the excitement that a Nokia product would have once generated has been replaced by resignation. For many QT fans and developers, the question is not a matter of if Nokia will shutter QT, but of when.
Re: (Score:1)
I think a lot of people may have written off QT for dead. With Nokia becoming a glorified Microsoft lacky, most of the excitement that a Nokia product would have once generated has been replaced by resignation. For many QT fans and developers, the question is not a matter of if Nokia will shutter QT, but of when.
Except that Nokia insists that they have big plans for Qt. Apparently, they are moving it down to their lower-end featurephones which is kind of a big deal seeing that they sell a gazillion of them each year. They may be pushing Windows phone nowadays, but high-end smartphones are just one (rapidly shrinking) part of their overall business. The rumour is they are planning to launch a launch bunch of Qt enabled featurephones at NokiaWorld next month. There are millions of Africans, Indians and Chinese liter
It's a trap (Score:1)