| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
On 06/05/2010 05:05, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 5/5/2010 3:32 PM, Adam Baxter wrote:1 GTK (perhaps on the developer side of things - this is normally tricky to bundle with applications)While on the subject, Qt and bindings would make a ton of sense, that is a distribution PITA.
Qt's an interesting one. TrollTe^WNokia altered the licensing options available with Qt 4.x, allowing open source projects to freely use the entire distribution on Windows, but only via the MingW tool chain.
If you want to use the VS tool chain (and all the VS bells and whistles), you have to purchase a commercial license (regardless of whether or not your project was open source).
CoApp should abstract all of these details away though and simply provide support for both types of Qt consumers with minimal fuss. We could certainly start the ball rolling on the open source/MingW side, via a shallow fork, and then work with the Qt/Nokia folk on a way to handle the commercial side. It'll be such a value add for them I'm sure they'll be keen to jump on board the CoApp band wagon.
(Disclaimer: I'm a huge fan (and was a commercial customer, for a number of years, paying for licenses out of my own pocket) of Qt and PyQt. Their support is excellent, user community vibrant, and the library is just so freakin' lovely to program with. Anything we can do to persuade open source projects to use Qt instead of GTK+ is a step in the right direction ;-)
(Once we've gained some traction over the next few weeks I'll be more than happy to get in touch with Nokia and start selling them the virtues of CoApp.)
Trent.
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
