4 ms·
Not a consipiracy. There are many modules that haven't been ported to Qt 6, but are planned to be ported by 6.2: https://www.qt.io/blog/add-on-support-in-qt-6.0
by ldiracdelta 6y ago
Not a consipiracy. There are many modules that haven't been ported to Qt 6, but are planned to be ported by 6.2: https://www.qt.io/blog/add-on-support-in-qt-6.0-and-beyond https://www.qt.io/blog/add-on-support-in-qt-6.0-and-beyond https://wiki.qt.io/Checklist_for_Qt_6.0_inclusion https://wiki.qt.io/Checklist_for_Qt_6.0_inclusion
Personally, I can't migrate to Qt 6 because it lacks the location module.
- dagmx 6y agoThat's fair. However, I guess I'm trying to get the poster to provide sources in general for all his claims in this thread. There's a big difference between: - modules not ported yet - modules ported and being held behind a commercial license where they weren't before. One is more nefarious than the other, but by omitting context, the initial poster is alluding to the more sinister option based on the dramatic context of their posts.
- nly 6y agoBasically nothing prevents them from declaring 6.2 LTS on day 0, only releasing sources for most modules to commercial customers and only under the LGPL up to a year later (under the KDE agreement)
- CarVac 6y agoThat's not in their favor, though. The point of moving open-source off of LTS is to move open source onto the bleeding edge to provide testing, not to just withhold 6.2 entirely. > Starting with Qt 5.15, long term support (LTS) will only be available to commercial customers. This means open-source users will receive patch-level releases of 5.15 until the next minor release will become available. This means that we will handle Qt 5.15 in the same way as e.g. 5.13 or 5.14 for open source users.
- nly 6y agoWhy should I alpha test their bleeding edge versions if any issues I report result in a patch that I myself, and others like me, can't access for at least 12 months? I'd be better off reporting a bug on GitHub to some FOSS fork, because at least when it's fixed I can benefit from it immediately. Likewise any contributions I made would be welcome (Qt Company are now closing patch contributions) They're already doing the work of cherry picking and testing LTS. They're saving themselves a git merge and a git push because they falsely believe this will drive further sales. Maybe it will, but they're still throwing the FOSS community using Qt 5 under the bus. It would have been better to go back to GPL, and had just had timely FOSS releases, since a small business license for the library is only $500/year.
- nly 6y agoThey already refer to 6.2 as LTS in their blog posts, so it's going to happen
- CarVac 6y ago5.15 is also LTS but it's treated the same as 5.14 for open-source. Likewise, 6.2 will be LTS but it's the support that is gated, not the release. Or is this not the case?
- nly 6y agoThat's entirely up to them. They've blogged that 6.2 as LTS and announced that LTS branches won't be public until they're a year old. Why would they make 6.2.0 a public FOSS release and then withhold 6.2.1 for a year? And even if they did, would you want to use a .0 release on your project? No, it seems likely to me that 6.2 will effectively be closed source when it's announced, and open source releases will follow after a year.