Possible impending Qt fork and copperspice opportunity
Posted: Sat Apr 11 2020 3:07 pm
Hello Everyone,
I just read the article at https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=More-Interest-Possible-Qt-Fork which speculates on a fork of Qt due to Qt licensing becoming more restrictive in a way that might impede its use in open source projects. See also https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Qt-Might-Restrict-New-Releases.
This might be an opportunity for Copperspice, which already is a fork of Qt (albeit on version 4 rather than version 5). Instead of forking Qt from scratch again it might be worth people considering Copperspice and how it could be used to dodge these new restrictions. Of course, their is a lot of work to do before any fork would be in a position to be used instead of Qt in a large project such as KDE. Maybe it isn't even possible/feasible. But I just thought I'd mention it, FYI.
This issue has happened with Qt despite a strong history of open source development and using a well-established open source license. I think this shows the importance of open source projects being very up-front as to what license they have with corresponding implications for use or not in proprietary software and how the project is funded. It would be nice, IMO, for Copperspice to have a more prominent page from the home page that says what the license is and explains how the project is funded.
I just read the article at https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=More-Interest-Possible-Qt-Fork which speculates on a fork of Qt due to Qt licensing becoming more restrictive in a way that might impede its use in open source projects. See also https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Qt-Might-Restrict-New-Releases.
This might be an opportunity for Copperspice, which already is a fork of Qt (albeit on version 4 rather than version 5). Instead of forking Qt from scratch again it might be worth people considering Copperspice and how it could be used to dodge these new restrictions. Of course, their is a lot of work to do before any fork would be in a position to be used instead of Qt in a large project such as KDE. Maybe it isn't even possible/feasible. But I just thought I'd mention it, FYI.
This issue has happened with Qt despite a strong history of open source development and using a well-established open source license. I think this shows the importance of open source projects being very up-front as to what license they have with corresponding implications for use or not in proprietary software and how the project is funded. It would be nice, IMO, for Copperspice to have a more prominent page from the home page that says what the license is and explains how the project is funded.