[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re: [Gnumed-devel] Qt licensing issues for GNUmed

From: Tim Churches
Subject: Re: Re: [Gnumed-devel] Qt licensing issues for GNUmed
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:57:41 +1000

Karsten Hilbert <address@hidden> wrote:
> > >From the development point-of-view, the situation with Qt is not
> > as bad as it first seems, because everyone can use the free 
> > Linux/Unix/MacOSX version of Qt to do GUI work. My understanding
> > is that these GUI builders save a .ui file,
> Which will reduce me to having to use the GUI builder which in
> turn will force me to *always* go back and forward-port the
> functionality code into the "new stubs" whenever I change some
> whimsicial aspect of the user interface. Not me.
> > which is an XML 
> > representation of the GUI, plus stub code in C++.
> Not me. Not at this stage. I am not going to go out and write
> code in C++ which gets scrapped (or is being discussed as getting
> scrapped) at the rate we are doing now :-)   OTOH I always
> said I ain't be seen coding significant amounts of GUI code
> anyways unless forced to by sword and fire (and I can
> withstand a lot of both, actually ...). In Python I write it
> and it runs - most of the time.
> But maybe I misunderstand the concept.
> > Both of these are portable to Windows, where, if you have the
> At this stage I don't want to *port* but rather want to
> load-and-execute. However, see above.
> > to one or at best a few people who have the quite expensive
> commercial
> > Qt and PyQt software. Of course, these people can then distribute 
> > no-cost runtimes so lots of people can do runtime testing of the
> Hm. I do not intend to write GnuMed for it to be distributable
> as "no-cost runtimes". I intend to distribute the source code.
> One reason being that I thusly free *myself* from any obligation
> towards the "customer" regarding features requests etc. That is
> important to me and my time. Quite selfish hence very simple
> to express.

All very true and completely reasonable. I wasn't making a case for Qt, merely 
exploring the issues for my own enlightenment, since Qt was mentioned 
repeatedly at the GNUmed conference last week. Having explored the issues, 
personally I don't think that Qt is an option for GNUmed, as attractive as it 
is, but 
as I said, it is up to the GNUmed developers.

Tim C

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]