On 2020-09-28 19:48, g4sra via Dng wrote:
> On 28/09/2020 02:29, Hendrik Boom wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 01:35:55AM +0200, aitor_czr wrote:
>>> On 27/9/20 13:59, g4sra via Dng wrote:
>>>> I have reservations about where QT5 is going, despite any issue with pulseaudio, now might be a good time to jump ship.
>>
>> I've been wondering about QT5, but haven't been able to pinpint what makes me
>> uneasy. Care to elaborate?
>
> History!
>
> Remember StarOffice -> OpenOffice leading to the fork and creation of LibreOffice because the other two were taken over and pulled in-house ?
>
> MySQL -> MariaDB another example.
>
> With respect to KDE\LXQT
> QT are slowly pulling the source in-house with each release, they keep changing the licensing of it's various aspects.
> They are also starting to require and charge a fee for licenses.
> Currently I believe you can submit patches to QT *provided* you register for a QT account first, how long before you need to pay a fee.....
>
> If I cannot freely submit and have patches applied the official source, then in my book that source is not FOSS even if the source is published for me to look at.
> I have no qualms about using TDE as the development team have already sort of forked QT -> TQt by maintaining an earlier uninhibited version themselves.

Didn't I read somewhere that KDE has forked QT?