Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Python > is there really no good gui builder

Reply
Thread Tools

is there really no good gui builder

 
 
Phil Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2008
On 9 Nov 2008 14:40:22 GMT, Duncan Booth <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
>
>>> It is a novel interpretation of the GPL. Qt Software have every
>>> right to impose this sort of condition, but it makes me want to
>>> avoid them.

>>
>> No, they have no such right to interpret the GPL this way; it would be
>> entirely incompatible with the GPL since it would be an imposition of
>> additional restrictions, resulting in work that could not legally be
>> redistributed at all.

>
> Thay aren't claiming that Qt itself is governed by the GPL, what they
> are claiming is that the 'Qt Open Source License' permits you to use it
> for development of "Open Source software governed by the GNU General
> Public License versions 2 and 3". I believe they can make whatever
> conditions they like for their own license.


This is just plain wrong. The open source version is licensed under either
v2 or v3 of the GPL - your choice. There is no such thing as a separate "Qt
Open Source License".

> The GPL doesn't actually say you cannot redistribute work which adds
> additional restrictions. It says "If the Program as you
> received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
> governed by this License along with a term that is a further
> restriction, you may remove that term."
>
>> In fact, I don't think they are making such an interpretation, though
>> their poorly-worded web page that you quoted certainly encourages
>> readers to make such a false interpretation.

>
> It looks very much to me as though they are trying to make
> that interpretation, it is repeated in a variety of forms across the
> website. But it doesn't really matter whether they can make it stick or
> not, I simply choose to avoid worrying about the issue by choosing
> another platform where possible. (Which is a shame really as the small
> amount of playing I did with Qt indicates it to be a very nice
> platform.)
>
> The license itself says:


....you mean the webpage, the license is the standard GPL with all that that
implies...

> "This means that you cannot use a Qt Open Source Edition if your
> software must be built with any modules that impose conditions on you
> that contradict the conditions of the GNU GPL, including, but not
> limited to, software patents, commercial license agreements,
> copyrighted interface definitions or any sort of non-disclosure
> agreement (NDA). In these circumstances you must use a commercial
> edition of Qt."
>
> That I guess taken literally that means you cannot use Qt Open Source
> Edition if your software uses Qt Open Source Edition.


The only "additional" restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial*
license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage
commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their
development phase.

Phil
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Kevin Walzer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2008
Phil Thompson wrote:

>
> The only "additional" restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial*
> license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage
> commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their
> development phase.
>
>


Is this interpretation of Qt's license correct:

A developer may use the open-source edition of Qt to develop commercial
software with licenseing fees, provided that the developer releases the
product and source code under an open-source license compatible with the
GPL..

This means that if the developer is willing to take the risk of having
all product source code open, with the attendant possibility of a
modified version of the developer's product being freely redistributed
without code enforcing any licensing fees, then the developer may forego
paying commercial license fees to Qt (and Riverbank, if the product is
PyQt) and use the open-source version.

--
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin
http://www.codebykevin.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Kevin Walzer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2008
Phil Thompson wrote:

>
> The only "additional" restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial*
> license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage
> commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their
> development phase.
>
>


Is this interpretation of Qt's license correct:

A developer may use the open-source edition of Qt to develop commercial
software with licenseing fees, provided that the developer releases the
product and source code under an open-source license compatible with the
GPL..

This means that if the developer is willing to take the risk of having
all product source code open, with the attendant possibility of a
modified version of the developer's product being freely redistributed
without code enforcing any licensing fees, then the developer may forego
paying commercial license fees to Qt (and Riverbank, if the product is
PyQt) and use the open-source version.

--
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin
http://www.codebykevin.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Phil Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2008
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 12:15:42 -0500, Kevin Walzer <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> Phil Thompson wrote:
>
>>
>> The only "additional" restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial*
>> license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage
>> commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their
>> development phase.
>>
>>

>
> Is this interpretation of Qt's license correct:
>
> A developer may use the open-source edition of Qt to develop commercial
> software with licenseing fees, provided that the developer releases the
> product and source code under an open-source license compatible with the
> GPL..
>
> This means that if the developer is willing to take the risk of having
> all product source code open, with the attendant possibility of a
> modified version of the developer's product being freely redistributed
> without code enforcing any licensing fees, then the developer may forego
> paying commercial license fees to Qt (and Riverbank, if the product is
> PyQt) and use the open-source version.


If the above is a correct interpretation of the GPL, then yes.

Phil
 
Reply With Quote
 
Terry Reedy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2008
Ben Finney wrote:
> Duncan Booth <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:


>> In effect this means that if you want to develop any commercial
>> software with Qt you have to buy the license in advance (even if all
>> you want is to knock together some proof-of-concept) and you are
>> also permanently locked out from including any previously developed
>> Qt code which the wider community may have produced.

>
> That is a common misconception,


It looks to me like the plain reading of the Trolltech license. I think
one would be foolish to act on the belief that it does not mean what it
seems to mean. Trolltech must know how people interpret it and has had
years to change it. Since they have not, I presume it says what they mean.

> which is not made any better by
> misleading text like that found at the above page, and misleading
> dichotomies like GPL versus “commercial license”. A careful reader
> of the GPL will see that there is explicitly *no* restriction placed
> on redistributing the work commercially: any fee may be charged.


The operative license for QT is the QT license, not the GPL.
They want people even thinking about going commercial to buy a
commercial license from the beginning. I am sure that in their
judgment, this gains more that it loses. And I would not be surprised
if they are right.

 
Reply With Quote
 
azrael
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2008
It would be rally great if wingIDE would have integrated controls for
wxPython.This would be really great.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Boddie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2008
On Sunday 09 November 2008 20:08, Duncan Booth wrote:

> So are the references to 'Qt Open Source License' on the website
> misleading?


It depends on whether you assume that there's a separate license by that
name. In practice, it's a placeholder for the licenses it's available under:

"The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open
Source software governed by the GNU General Public License versions 2 and 3
(?GPL?). The Qt Commercial Editions must be used for proprietary,
commercial development."
-- http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing

However, quickly skimming that page, I can see how you could reach the
following conclusion:

> It seems to me that the claims on the website are very
> carefully worded to say that you have to develop code under the GPL (or
> other open source license), not that Qt itself is released under the
> GPL, and given the additional conditions they impose I would have said
> at best it is GPL + lots of other restrictions.


No, the Qt Open Source Edition is GPL version 2 or version 3 (your choice)
with exceptions (additional permissions) that let you link things to it that
you couldn't if it was pure GPL. It it was GPL + restrictions, it wouldn't
be GPL compatible (you can't add restrictions to the GPL, as I understand
it).

More information can be found here:

http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/gpl.html

David
 
Reply With Quote
 
Phil Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2008
On 9 Nov 2008 19:08:35 GMT, Duncan Booth <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> Phil Thompson wrote:
>
>>> Thay aren't claiming that Qt itself is governed by the GPL, what they
>>> are claiming is that the 'Qt Open Source License' permits you to use it
>>> for development of "Open Source software governed by the GNU General
>>> Public License versions 2 and 3". I believe they can make whatever
>>> conditions they like for their own license.

>>
>> This is just plain wrong. The open source version is licensed under
>> either
>> v2 or v3 of the GPL - your choice. There is no such thing as a separate
>> "Qt
>> Open Source License".

>
> So are the references to 'Qt Open Source License' on the website
> misleading? It seems to me that the claims on the website are very
> carefully worded to say that you have to develop code under the GPL (or
> other open source license), not that Qt itself is released under the
> GPL, and given the additional conditions they impose I would have said
> at best it is GPL + lots of other restrictions.
>
> Feel free to disagree, I am not an intellectual property lowyer.


Download the source, read the text of the license, it's the GPL.

Phil
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Driscoll
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2008
On Nov 8, 1:35*pm, azrael <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and
> that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time
> during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one
> project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I
> tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only
> descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped
> in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something
> descent.
> I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in
> python than in VB.


I normally don't recommend this, but you can use Visual Studio to
create your GUI and then use IronPython to run it. Then you'll have
the "best" of both worlds.

I don't use IronPython that much, but I do like that. For the most
part though, I just use wxPython.

Mike
 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin J. Williams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2008
Mike Driscoll wrote:
> On Nov 8, 1:35�pm, azrael <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and
>> that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time
>> during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one
>> project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I
>> tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only
>> descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped
>> in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something
>> descent.
>> I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in
>> python than in VB.

>
> I normally don't recommend this, but you can use Visual Studio to
> create your GUI and then use IronPython to run it. Then you'll have
> the "best" of both worlds.


Yes, but you would probably need the
version of Visual Studio (2003,
I believe) which is used for Python.

Is there any chance that Python could
use the freely available of
Visual Studio?

>
> I don't use IronPython that much, but I do like that. For the most
> part though, I just use wxPython.
>
> Mike

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: There is still a great need for a "C GUI Designer/Builder". Les Cargill C Programming 0 06-29-2012 10:55 PM
Re: Pythonic cross-platform GUI desingers la Interface Builder (Re: what gui designer is everyone using) Dietmar Schwertberger Python 5 06-25-2012 10:15 PM
Re: Pythonic cross-platform GUI desingers la Interface Builder (Re: what gui designer is everyone using) Dietmar Schwertberger Python 5 06-15-2012 11:35 PM
Re: Pythonic cross-platform GUI desingers la Interface Builder (Re: what gui designer is everyone using) Chris Angelico Python 1 06-14-2012 06:43 PM
is there a project running (GUI Builder for Python ) ? azrael Python 8 02-13-2009 03:21 PM



Advertisments