5 ms·

I'd guess they really want to get rid of the LGPL option (which was introduced when Qt was owned by Nokia and presumably they were more interested in Qt as a pl

by beojan 6y ago

I'd guess they really want to get rid of the LGPL option (which was introduced when Qt was owned by Nokia and presumably they were more interested in Qt as a platform to develop their own products on than as a revenue stream), but the KDE Free Qt agreement means they can't just get rid of it.

shrimp_emoji 6y ago
Qt is GPL and LGPLv3[0]; gtk is LGPLv2[1]. Is there that much difference? 0: https://www.qt.io/licensing/ https://www.qt.io/licensing/ 1: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/blob/master/COPYING https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/blob/master/COPYING
- beojan 6y ago
  I think LGPLv3 has anti-tivoization provisions. That said, I don't see how Gtk's license has anything to do with The Qt Company's recent antics. I'm in no way advocating people choose Gtk over Qt.
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  And Gtk isn't a good option for non-Linux use. wxWidgets is LGPL (sort-of, modified) as well. wxWidgets is much more reasonable than Gtk for cross-plattform use, though can't compete with Qt Widgets in terms of features, API design, ease of use, stability etc. It seems really weird to me how "but teh licenz" is brought up every time with Qt, when Qt itself is available under the same licenses as all the other toolkits like Gtk, wxWidgets etc. This doesn't quite apply for embedded development (as LGPL's Tivoization clause might start to bite), but 1.) neither Gtk nor wxWidgets are viable in that space anyway 2.) considering that other people here found that Tesla manages to ship their car firmware with LGPL Qt - well. Can't be that hard to comply with it. Also, 3.) while we're used to free tools and libraries for desktop development, it's much more common to pay for tools in embedded development.
  - spease 6y ago
    I tried to use wxWidgets awhile back and gave up. It was a mess. Macros everywhere.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      I've only ever used its Python bindings, and wxWidgets was pleasant to use for my use case.
    - int_19h 6y ago
      The design of wxWidgets is very familiar to someone who started on MFC. There were reasons (perf, mostly) to write code that way back when MFC was a thing, but we certainly have better ways now.
  - freedomben 6y ago
    I've used Qt for several projects in the past, but with this latest news I'm looking at GTK seriously now. Why would you say GTK isn't a good option for non-Linux use? And would you say that it is a good option for Linux?
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      > Why would you say GTK isn't a good option for non-Linux use? And would you say that it is a good option for Linux? You need something like MSYS2 to even use GTK on Windows, and I've looked at what it takes to package and distribute GTK applications to Windows users without MSYS2, and it's headache inducing. When it comes to Linux, it's pretty good. Getting its GObject Introspection dependencies compiled is another story, though. I've always had to rely on my distribution's package manager to install them.
  - Vogtinator 6y ago
    Gtk isn't even a good option for Linux use. Outside of GNOME, it just does not even try to fit in and behave.
    - 6y ago

by beojan 6y ago

shrimp_emoji 6y ago

Qt is GPL and LGPLv3[0]; gtk is LGPLv2[1]. Is there that much difference? 0: https://www.qt.io/licensing/ https://www.qt.io/licensing/ 1: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/blob/master/COPYING https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/blob/master/COPYING

beojan 6y ago
I think LGPLv3 has anti-tivoization provisions. That said, I don't see how Gtk's license has anything to do with The Qt Company's recent antics. I'm in no way advocating people choose Gtk over Qt.
formerly_proven 6y ago
And Gtk isn't a good option for non-Linux use. wxWidgets is LGPL (sort-of, modified) as well. wxWidgets is much more reasonable than Gtk for cross-plattform use, though can't compete with Qt Widgets in terms of features, API design, ease of use, stability etc. It seems really weird to me how "but teh licenz" is brought up every time with Qt, when Qt itself is available under the same licenses as all the other toolkits like Gtk, wxWidgets etc. This doesn't quite apply for embedded development (as LGPL's Tivoization clause might start to bite), but 1.) neither Gtk nor wxWidgets are viable in that space anyway 2.) considering that other people here found that Tesla manages to ship their car firmware with LGPL Qt - well. Can't be that hard to comply with it. Also, 3.) while we're used to free tools and libraries for desktop development, it's much more common to pay for tools in embedded development.
- spease 6y ago
  I tried to use wxWidgets awhile back and gave up. It was a mess. Macros everywhere.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    I've only ever used its Python bindings, and wxWidgets was pleasant to use for my use case.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    The design of wxWidgets is very familiar to someone who started on MFC. There were reasons (perf, mostly) to write code that way back when MFC was a thing, but we certainly have better ways now.
- freedomben 6y ago
  I've used Qt for several projects in the past, but with this latest news I'm looking at GTK seriously now. Why would you say GTK isn't a good option for non-Linux use? And would you say that it is a good option for Linux?
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    > Why would you say GTK isn't a good option for non-Linux use? And would you say that it is a good option for Linux? You need something like MSYS2 to even use GTK on Windows, and I've looked at what it takes to package and distribute GTK applications to Windows users without MSYS2, and it's headache inducing. When it comes to Linux, it's pretty good. Getting its GObject Introspection dependencies compiled is another story, though. I've always had to rely on my distribution's package manager to install them.
- Vogtinator 6y ago
  Gtk isn't even a good option for Linux use. Outside of GNOME, it just does not even try to fit in and behave.
  - 6y ago