5 ms·

Thanks! I changed the license to GPLv3.

sho_hn 4y ago
Note your alternative would be to use the official "Qt for Python" (aka PySide) bindings. Those are LGPL, which is one of the main reasons they exist (PyQt was started earlier but unlike much of Qt is not LGPL). This is from when Qt still cared about LGPL, i.e. the Nokia days when the aim was to be the commercial-friendly Nokia SDK.
- bombolo 4y ago
  Since pyside was discontinued once already, I tend to not trust it any longer.
- necovek 4y ago
  Wasn't QT originally GPL-or-commercial by Trolltech? Which is what spawned GNOME and Gtk as a response to QT-using KDE?
  - not_the_fda 4y ago
    Not exactly. It was originally licensed under its own Qt Free License which the K Desktop environment was using and becoming a large player in the DE space. It was not considered "free software", which spawned GTK. Then it was released under its own QPL license, and KDE negotiated that if Qt went bankrupt it would change to an MIT license. Finally it was released as GPL.
    - necovek 4y ago
      Right, thanks for the correction: my memory is at least approximately on point :) FWIW, I think Gtk+ was independently extracted from Gimp as Gimp Toolkit, but KDE success drove GNOME creation based on LGPL-ed Gtk+, which, as you point out, later put pressure on Qt to be relicensed.
      - sho_hn 4y ago
        I don't think GTK+ exerted any pressure there - it has never been competitive with Qt, in terms of markets with money. The LGPL relicensing mainly happened because Nokia bought Qt and aimed to make it the SDK for all their phones going forward, which was compatible with permissive licensing business-wise.
        necovek 4y ago
        Depends on how you define "markets with money": Sun based their pre-acquision Solaris on GNOME and put a lot of money into accessibility and HIG in the GNOME 2.0 days. Similarly, Nokia started Maemo (and their Internet Tablets N700 iirc) on Gtk+ before pivoting to Qt after the acquision (with their N810, N800 and N9). RedHat and SuSE invested heavily in GNOME as well, just like Canonical did who hired plenty from the GNOME community. KDE mostly never had that kind of money (basically SuSE and was it Mandrake?), though Qt is obviously a different thing (whereas Gtk+ is a core part of the GNOME project). Both of these were struggling in the changing workstation/PC/mobile market, so I don't consider it against Gtk+: eg. Nokia was soon acquired by Microsoft and even Qt version barely hit the market. Still, I do believe success of KDE and GNOME has had at least some of the effect on getting Qt LGPL-ed: there is little doubt KDE was great marketing for Qt (there was a plethora of Windows GUI toolkits: cross-platform, not so much). OFC, I was in none of those boardrooms, so it's all speculative ;)
        sho_hn 4y ago
        When it comes to funding for Gnome vs. KDE I'd it's probably a lot closer between the two than a lot of people realize, especially if you consider that KDE didn't have to shoulder the development of the GUI toolkit alone (even though it has contributed a lot of code to Qt and provided some maintainers). I don't think Sun's investment at the time was all that big in today's terms. Canonical also hired plenty from the KDE community (I'm sure you're aware Ubuntu Touch was done on Qt, and in terms of staff and expense a much larger project than Ubuntu Desktop; Kubuntu also had Canonical funding and paid devs for a while), as did Trolltech/Qt, as did Nokia, as did SuSE as you mention. There's also always been indirect funding (and hiring) through the consultancy ecosystem, e.g. KDAB's commercial contracts to maintain PIM for a while, and other such engagements, e.g. by the city government of Munich and other municipal and educational deployments large enough to pay contractors. Blue Systems has employed a significant team of core devs for closing in on a decade now, and Valve has engagements with them and others. When it comes to Qt vs. GTK: I would guesstimate that at the peak, GTK+ perhaps had around 10 concurrent paid devs? The peak for Qt was in the 100s, from markets like embedded and automotive that GTK+ hasn't really been able to access (yes, I had all the Maemo devices too). And even for its core focus area, desktop apps, GTK+ hasn't seen a lot of adoption outside the Linux niche, whereas there's a seriously large amount of commercial Windows/Mac software using Qt. This is really what I meant. Bottom line: Most PC users have a few copies of Qt on their computer, and perhaps own a device or two in their home and another in their garage that also has Qt on it. The same cannot be said for GTK+. A computer with GTK+ on it is relatively rare, perhaps in the tens of millions vs. billions. It's also worth noting that users who migrate away from Qt do it to either Flutter (because of more permissive licensing - BSD - or mobile capabilities) or Electron (to share tech with their website) or Unity/Unreal (because of the rendering capabilities), but not to GTK+. Users who migrate away from GTK+ often migrate to Qt (e.g. Wireshark and a couple of others). I can't think of an example of anyone moving to GTK+ from really anything else (probably exists but likely minor). To me that means that while Qt has fierce competition, GTK+ is not really among it.

Note your alternative would be to use the official "Qt for Python" (aka PySide) bindings. Those are LGPL, which is one of the main reasons they exist (PyQt was started earlier but unlike much of Qt is not LGPL). This is from when Qt still cared about LGPL, i.e. the Nokia days when the aim was to be the commercial-friendly Nokia SDK.

bombolo 4y ago
Since pyside was discontinued once already, I tend to not trust it any longer.
necovek 4y ago
Wasn't QT originally GPL-or-commercial by Trolltech? Which is what spawned GNOME and Gtk as a response to QT-using KDE?
- not_the_fda 4y ago
  Not exactly. It was originally licensed under its own Qt Free License which the K Desktop environment was using and becoming a large player in the DE space. It was not considered "free software", which spawned GTK. Then it was released under its own QPL license, and KDE negotiated that if Qt went bankrupt it would change to an MIT license. Finally it was released as GPL.
  - necovek 4y ago
    Right, thanks for the correction: my memory is at least approximately on point :) FWIW, I think Gtk+ was independently extracted from Gimp as Gimp Toolkit, but KDE success drove GNOME creation based on LGPL-ed Gtk+, which, as you point out, later put pressure on Qt to be relicensed.
    - sho_hn 4y ago
      I don't think GTK+ exerted any pressure there - it has never been competitive with Qt, in terms of markets with money. The LGPL relicensing mainly happened because Nokia bought Qt and aimed to make it the SDK for all their phones going forward, which was compatible with permissive licensing business-wise.
      - necovek 4y ago
        Depends on how you define "markets with money": Sun based their pre-acquision Solaris on GNOME and put a lot of money into accessibility and HIG in the GNOME 2.0 days. Similarly, Nokia started Maemo (and their Internet Tablets N700 iirc) on Gtk+ before pivoting to Qt after the acquision (with their N810, N800 and N9). RedHat and SuSE invested heavily in GNOME as well, just like Canonical did who hired plenty from the GNOME community. KDE mostly never had that kind of money (basically SuSE and was it Mandrake?), though Qt is obviously a different thing (whereas Gtk+ is a core part of the GNOME project). Both of these were struggling in the changing workstation/PC/mobile market, so I don't consider it against Gtk+: eg. Nokia was soon acquired by Microsoft and even Qt version barely hit the market. Still, I do believe success of KDE and GNOME has had at least some of the effect on getting Qt LGPL-ed: there is little doubt KDE was great marketing for Qt (there was a plethora of Windows GUI toolkits: cross-platform, not so much). OFC, I was in none of those boardrooms, so it's all speculative ;)
        sho_hn 4y ago
        When it comes to funding for Gnome vs. KDE I'd it's probably a lot closer between the two than a lot of people realize, especially if you consider that KDE didn't have to shoulder the development of the GUI toolkit alone (even though it has contributed a lot of code to Qt and provided some maintainers). I don't think Sun's investment at the time was all that big in today's terms. Canonical also hired plenty from the KDE community (I'm sure you're aware Ubuntu Touch was done on Qt, and in terms of staff and expense a much larger project than Ubuntu Desktop; Kubuntu also had Canonical funding and paid devs for a while), as did Trolltech/Qt, as did Nokia, as did SuSE as you mention. There's also always been indirect funding (and hiring) through the consultancy ecosystem, e.g. KDAB's commercial contracts to maintain PIM for a while, and other such engagements, e.g. by the city government of Munich and other municipal and educational deployments large enough to pay contractors. Blue Systems has employed a significant team of core devs for closing in on a decade now, and Valve has engagements with them and others. When it comes to Qt vs. GTK: I would guesstimate that at the peak, GTK+ perhaps had around 10 concurrent paid devs? The peak for Qt was in the 100s, from markets like embedded and automotive that GTK+ hasn't really been able to access (yes, I had all the Maemo devices too). And even for its core focus area, desktop apps, GTK+ hasn't seen a lot of adoption outside the Linux niche, whereas there's a seriously large amount of commercial Windows/Mac software using Qt. This is really what I meant. Bottom line: Most PC users have a few copies of Qt on their computer, and perhaps own a device or two in their home and another in their garage that also has Qt on it. The same cannot be said for GTK+. A computer with GTK+ on it is relatively rare, perhaps in the tens of millions vs. billions. It's also worth noting that users who migrate away from Qt do it to either Flutter (because of more permissive licensing - BSD - or mobile capabilities) or Electron (to share tech with their website) or Unity/Unreal (because of the rendering capabilities), but not to GTK+. Users who migrate away from GTK+ often migrate to Qt (e.g. Wireshark and a couple of others). I can't think of an example of anyone moving to GTK+ from really anything else (probably exists but likely minor). To me that means that while Qt has fierce competition, GTK+ is not really among it.