Nokia has announced that the new Qt library (4.5) will be available under the LGPL license (March 2009). Hopefully, this will mean that Embarcadero will revive Linux support with it's upcoming 64-bit, compile-to-many-targets compiler rewrite.
Actually, it could mean that we would finally have a true CLX revision that would let us have native write-once, compile-to-many-targets, cross platform support for Windows, Mac, Linux, Embedded Linux, Windows CE, and the S60 (eventually). If Delphi's component architecture could be revamped to produce true Qt widgets, Embarcadero would suddenly enable all of the Delphi component vendors to gain access to a client-base that is much larger than what Delphi currently offers. Qt does not have much selection from third-party component vendors. A DevExpress or TMS Software offering would provide a nice upgrade to the basic Qt widgets.
Delphi Prism theoretically supports multi-platform through the use of Mono but you have to add the managed code overhead to everything. There was a recent article on using Mono to develop for the iPhone which talked about stripping the managed code down to a true compiled state (Apple doesn't permit managed code to run apparently.) It was done with C# but there is no particular reason (that I'm aware of) Delphi Prism couldn't work the same way. Has anyone tried to do multi-platform with Prism?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
That is really cool new. QT was always kind of an odd duck because it wasn't LGPL licensed.
I don't think many developers understand the LGPL, so I hope my comment helps.
NOTE: Before attacking this comment, please do 2 things:
1. read the LGPL
2. ask FSF.ORG if they disagree with my comments
The LGPL allows you to license your derived works under your own terms, but only if your own terms allow reverse-engineering, among other things.
E.g., if your commercial software links to an LGPL library, then your software's EULA cannot forbid users from reverse-engineering your software.
Too many developers assume LGPL means "anything goes" and they end up violating the terms.
This is why many LGPL libraries include an "escape clause" for software that links to unmodified versions of the library. Unless QT provides such an escape clause to LGPL, I'm forbidden by my company to use it.
forbidden by your company to use it? You can still pay for that right from Nokia if you really want it. Nobody is forcing you to use the LGPL. Pay for the right to use it how you want. Or don't complain if its free. Honestly some people.
2Anonymous
>I don't think many developers understand the LGPL
I think that YOU do not understand the LGPL. And YOU should read LGPL again and again and again...
LGPL does have a reverse engineering provision; however, please read the FSF.org definition closely: "allow new versions of the library to be linked with the application; and allow reverse engineering to debug this." Place the emphasis on debug and you can see how this is not, in my opinion, a major issue.
For the record, the likely hood of finding someone who is technically competent enough to reverse engineer your program AND malicious in intent is probably vanishingly small. So long as you are maintaining the software, 99.9% of people will simply contact you and ask for a fix. If you aren't maintaining the software (and most likely not generating revenue from it as a result), what difference does it make if someone patches it for you?
@multiple anoyamouses
Why do you people have to post as anonymous?
I do not want particularly to know your real names, but it is much easier to remember who explained what if you use a sensible pseudonym. Please get a login name.
Doei Rif
The 1st comment by me (Anonymous) is NOT a criticism of LGPL. And it was NOT a criticism of QT being license under LGPL.
I was trying to help others avoid violating the terms of LGPL out of misunderstanding or willful ignorance.
Let us separate facts from opinions.
FACTS:
1. I contacted FSF.ORG about LGPL and got confirmation about my understanding. If you disagree with my understanding, email them yourself.
2. Many LGPL libraries--run by smarter people than I--provide exceptions that address the exact issue I raised (what I called "escape clause" in my 1st comment).
Since this is about QT being released under LGPL, I will provide two examples of GUI libraries that are licensed under LGPL + "escape clause":
http://www.wxwidgets.org/about/licence3.txt
http://www.fltk.org/COPYING.php
Why would they bother including exceptions to LGPL to address issues unless it was real?
If your understanding of LGPL differs from mine, contact FSF.ORG or a qualified intellectual property attorney instead of being offended.
Frankly, I don't understand why some people get upset over this when it is much more practical to get facts from qualified people.
Just because someone offers an interpretation of LGPL that is different from yours doesn't mean they are automatically wrong, and it isn't rational to get upset about it. Wishing something to be true isn't the same as it being true.
If you want to enjoy the fruits of labor provided by the generous folks creating LGPL libraries, please comply with their license.
Post a Comment