4 ms·

We are developing UI in slint-rs for our product. Our eventiual target is IoT devices (cyber defense) though we are starting with desktops. We are a young start

We are developing UI in slint-rs for our product. Our eventiual target is IoT devices (cyber defense) though we are starting with desktops. We are a young startup and our experience is very limited in UI space so please take all of it with a pinch of salt. One of our intern got the UI working with Slint in a few days and since then we didn't feel a strong need to move away from it. We found a few missing features: it was not possible to tell if a Windows is hidden or not. We ended up sending a few patches. So far our experience has been pretty good with slint-ui. We are not tested the UI on OSX and Linux yet, only windows. On AWS machines with Windows server, the UI fails to launch sometimes because of some missing GL libraries. Also note the licensing of Slint-UI https://github.com/slint-ui/slint/discussions/379 https://github.com/slint-ui/slint/discussions/379.

wizwit999 4y ago
- ogoffart 4y ago
  Maintainer here :-). Would you like to elaborate?
  - wizwit999 4y ago
    Well the repeated obfuscation between 'product' and 'code' when someone asked you how an open source project with an Apache License can depend on your project. Realistically, there's no way a project with a fully permissive license like Apache/MIT can use your project. You say: > The GPL is a good fit for open source users As the thread tells you, it's clearly not for the many Apache/MIT licensed Rust projects that cannot use your GPL licensed code. Again you say: > With the GPL, we are happy to let open source users use the library for free. Commercial users still will be able to use the library because of the escape hatch of the dual license. You make this differentiation between commercial and open source users while conveniently ignoring that the most permissively open source projects (Apache/MIT) are practically prevented from using your software. At least with BSL, projects are honest about what they're doing. Don't play both sides.
    - ogoffart 4y ago
      I stand by what I said Because Apache/MIT is compatible with the GPL, it is totally fine for people who like to license their code in Apache/MIT to do so. An example of that is KHTML, the web engine: KHTML was licensed under LGPL, despite it was based on Qt in very deep ways (usage of core feature such as QString, QList, all over the place). Qt was GPL at the time. Even then, Apple was able to take KHTML, and remove the Qt dependency, in order to create WebKit which is fully LGPL. One can totally make a "more permissive" product based on Slint. If someone wants to use the extra permissions that are not granted by the GPL, they still have the option to do so by purchasing a license, or using the free Slint license, or (worst case) porting away from Slint.
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        I think the confusing part to the parent comment is that they don't understand that your GPL license infects their project, but not the code they write for that project (which can be MIT or Apache). Personally, I'm not a big fan of licenses like GPL and BSL, but you do you. I just won't use your product.
        pie_flavor 4y ago
        If the project is licensed under the GPL, all the code in it is licensed under the GPL. The author is not precluded from later relicensing the non-GPL portions of the project under a different license - it's their code, they can release it under whatever license they want - but there will always be a version of that code that is under the GPL.
        pclmulqdq 4y ago
        This is true, but if you dual license like this, your code will also carry another more permissive license, like Apache, BSD, or MIT, without an explicit re-licensing at a later date. It (that code only) can then be used under the more permissive license straight from the GPL-marked project. To convert from a GPL-licensed project, the user would only have to replace the GPL-licensed components.
- Xylakant 4y ago
  Why do you believe the maintainer is disingenuous? They are very open about their reasons to pick GPL as their license. We don’t have to like it but it’s their code and their right to choose. They’re not pulling some weird kind of bait and switch, they’re upfront about wanting to sell commercial licenses to commercial enterprises - a pretty common business model. The available licenses are prominently displayed in the readme. Looks all perfectly fine to me.
  - mk89 4y ago
    They are actually very clever about it. There is literally 0 alternative in the Rust world: this is what the "gpl competitive advantage" is about.
    - tronical 4y ago
      We're not trying to be clever, TBH. There are many excellent alternatives out there in the Rust world. Our choice of Rust is primarily a technical choice, and later we found out that it's also a fantastic community to be part of. Most of us have our roots in the open source world, many (most?) of us learned coding because we were able to look at open source code, make changes to it, recompile and play with it. We're trying to give back to the open source community and at the same time earn a living by asking the people who use Slint for proprietary apps (i.e. not giving back) to support us by purchasing a license.
      - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
        Frankly, that's a fantastic use of the GPL. The idea that open source developers should bend over backwards to support the use case of people who can't be assed to give back to the open source community is ridiculous. If a company wants to make proprietary software off the back of open source developers, they can pay for a commercial license. Everyone else is free to use the GPL. All other so-called "free" licenses are just a way for corporations to co-opt the open source software community.
Herbstluft 4y ago
Wow that linked request is really something. Requesting/Suggesting the change of license is one thing. But this is just another example of a blatant lack of respect towards open source devs and maintainers. The misinformed GPL hatred displayed there is also ridiculous.
- pie_flavor 4y ago
  Could you name, specifically, the true things they do not know or the false things that they think they know? Or is 'misinformed' here simply a way of saying that you disagree, and have no such preference for people not requiring you to license your own code a certain way?
  - bsder 4y ago
    It's not about whether it is true or not. Requesting a license change from a project that you are not a primary maintainer is more than a little rude. However, continuing to request a license change even after the owners have explained why they chose the license is an astonishing level of entitlement. If you don't like the license, don't use the project. That's the deal--take it or leave it.
    - pie_flavor 4y ago
      "Misinformed" is, in fact, about whether something is true.

wizwit999 4y ago

ogoffart 4y ago
Maintainer here :-). Would you like to elaborate?
- wizwit999 4y ago
  Well the repeated obfuscation between 'product' and 'code' when someone asked you how an open source project with an Apache License can depend on your project. Realistically, there's no way a project with a fully permissive license like Apache/MIT can use your project. You say: > The GPL is a good fit for open source users As the thread tells you, it's clearly not for the many Apache/MIT licensed Rust projects that cannot use your GPL licensed code. Again you say: > With the GPL, we are happy to let open source users use the library for free. Commercial users still will be able to use the library because of the escape hatch of the dual license. You make this differentiation between commercial and open source users while conveniently ignoring that the most permissively open source projects (Apache/MIT) are practically prevented from using your software. At least with BSL, projects are honest about what they're doing. Don't play both sides.
  - ogoffart 4y ago
    I stand by what I said Because Apache/MIT is compatible with the GPL, it is totally fine for people who like to license their code in Apache/MIT to do so. An example of that is KHTML, the web engine: KHTML was licensed under LGPL, despite it was based on Qt in very deep ways (usage of core feature such as QString, QList, all over the place). Qt was GPL at the time. Even then, Apple was able to take KHTML, and remove the Qt dependency, in order to create WebKit which is fully LGPL. One can totally make a "more permissive" product based on Slint. If someone wants to use the extra permissions that are not granted by the GPL, they still have the option to do so by purchasing a license, or using the free Slint license, or (worst case) porting away from Slint.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      I think the confusing part to the parent comment is that they don't understand that your GPL license infects their project, but not the code they write for that project (which can be MIT or Apache). Personally, I'm not a big fan of licenses like GPL and BSL, but you do you. I just won't use your product.
      - pie_flavor 4y ago
        If the project is licensed under the GPL, all the code in it is licensed under the GPL. The author is not precluded from later relicensing the non-GPL portions of the project under a different license - it's their code, they can release it under whatever license they want - but there will always be a version of that code that is under the GPL.
        pclmulqdq 4y ago
        This is true, but if you dual license like this, your code will also carry another more permissive license, like Apache, BSD, or MIT, without an explicit re-licensing at a later date. It (that code only) can then be used under the more permissive license straight from the GPL-marked project. To convert from a GPL-licensed project, the user would only have to replace the GPL-licensed components.
Xylakant 4y ago
Why do you believe the maintainer is disingenuous? They are very open about their reasons to pick GPL as their license. We don’t have to like it but it’s their code and their right to choose. They’re not pulling some weird kind of bait and switch, they’re upfront about wanting to sell commercial licenses to commercial enterprises - a pretty common business model. The available licenses are prominently displayed in the readme. Looks all perfectly fine to me.
- mk89 4y ago
  They are actually very clever about it. There is literally 0 alternative in the Rust world: this is what the "gpl competitive advantage" is about.
  - tronical 4y ago
    We're not trying to be clever, TBH. There are many excellent alternatives out there in the Rust world. Our choice of Rust is primarily a technical choice, and later we found out that it's also a fantastic community to be part of. Most of us have our roots in the open source world, many (most?) of us learned coding because we were able to look at open source code, make changes to it, recompile and play with it. We're trying to give back to the open source community and at the same time earn a living by asking the people who use Slint for proprietary apps (i.e. not giving back) to support us by purchasing a license.
    - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
      Frankly, that's a fantastic use of the GPL. The idea that open source developers should bend over backwards to support the use case of people who can't be assed to give back to the open source community is ridiculous. If a company wants to make proprietary software off the back of open source developers, they can pay for a commercial license. Everyone else is free to use the GPL. All other so-called "free" licenses are just a way for corporations to co-opt the open source software community.

Herbstluft 4y ago

Wow that linked request is really something. Requesting/Suggesting the change of license is one thing. But this is just another example of a blatant lack of respect towards open source devs and maintainers. The misinformed GPL hatred displayed there is also ridiculous.

pie_flavor 4y ago
Could you name, specifically, the true things they do not know or the false things that they think they know? Or is 'misinformed' here simply a way of saying that you disagree, and have no such preference for people not requiring you to license your own code a certain way?
- bsder 4y ago
  It's not about whether it is true or not. Requesting a license change from a project that you are not a primary maintainer is more than a little rude. However, continuing to request a license change even after the owners have explained why they chose the license is an astonishing level of entitlement. If you don't like the license, don't use the project. That's the deal--take it or leave it.
  - pie_flavor 4y ago
    "Misinformed" is, in fact, about whether something is true.