19 Dec
2011
19 Dec
'11
3:51 p.m.
Out of curiosity? Isn't Qt registered trademark of nokia? I found this
on qt4/nokia page: "Nokia, Qt and their respective logos are
trademarks of Nokia Corporation in Finland and/or other countries
worldwide.".
19 Dec
19 Dec
4:42 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Qt3 legal issues?
Out of curiosity? Isn't Qt registered trademark of
nokia? I found this
on qt4/nokia page: "Nokia, Qt and their respective logos are
trademarks of Nokia Corporation in Finland and/or other countries
worldwide.".
As Qt3 is part of the LSB and is no longer maintained by Nokia the proper
action to take becomes a bit murky. Renaming the project will cause
confusion, and partially defeat the purpose of taking over Qt3 maintenance
in the first place.
My first thought is to wait and see if Nokia even cares enough to contact
us about it. We are not competing with Nokia (we don't even have a Web
site for Qt3!); the extent of our publication of Qt3 is a source directory
tucked away in our GIT tree. Personally I don't think we'll hear from
Nokia any time soon. ;-)
Tim
7:11 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Qt3 legal issues?
2011/12/19 Timothy Pearson <kb9vqf(a)pearsoncomputing.net>et>:
Let's hope so. Anyway I had an idea about whole Trinity, I already
talked about this with Calvin and he liked this idea.
I'd split whole trinity into 3 components: Trinity Libs, Trinity
Desktop Enviroment and Trinity Apps. And call the whole thing Trinity
Project
Trinity libs: qt3, tdelibs and other libs we provide
TDE: things only needed for desktop Enviroment. panels, menus,
kcontrol, kwin ecc...
Trinity apps: apps based on Trinity libs, but which do not require TDE
to be run.
What do you think about it?
Besides, split current tde* monolithic groups into single apps. Do we
have any reason to keep them as they are?
Out of
curiosity? Isn't Qt registered trademark of nokia? I found this
on qt4/nokia page: "Nokia, Qt and their respective logos are
trademarks of Nokia Corporation in Finland and/or other countries
worldwide.".
As Qt3 is part of the LSB and is no longer maintained by Nokia the proper
action to take becomes a bit murky. Renaming the project will cause
confusion, and partially defeat the purpose of taking over Qt3 maintenance
in the first place.
My first thought is to wait and see if Nokia even cares enough to contact
us about it. We are not competing with Nokia (we don't even have a Web
site for Qt3!); the extent of our publication of Qt3 is a source directory
tucked away in our GIT tree. Personally I don't think we'll hear from
Nokia any time soon. ;-)
7:26 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Qt3 legal issues?
L0ner sh4dou wrote:
Besides, split current tde* monolithic groups into
single apps. Do we
have any reason to keep them as they are?
Absolutely. Have you ever tried to build Gnome or Xorg? They are split
into single apps/libraries and are really difficult to get right.
Trinity/KDE3 is, by comparison, easy. If a distro wants to package the
files separately, then they are free to do so, but from the developer
standpoint, the distribution as it is now is quite efficient.
-- Bruce
8:33 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Qt3 legal issues?
Let's hope so. Anyway I had an idea about whole
Trinity, I
already
talked about this with Calvin and he liked this idea.
I'd split whole trinity into 3 components: Trinity Libs,
Trinity
Desktop Enviroment and Trinity Apps. And call the whole
thing Trinity
Project
Trinity libs: qt3, tdelibs and other libs we provide
TDE: things only needed for desktop Enviroment. panels,
menus,
kcontrol, kwin ecc...
Trinity apps: apps based on Trinity libs, but which do not
require TDE
to be run.
What do you think about it?
Besides, split current tde* monolithic groups into single
apps. Do we
have any reason to keep them as they are?
As I just mentioned in another response, I VERY MUCH like the idea of modularization. I
think that would be a great R15 priority. (R14 sorely needs to focus on paper cuts. :) )
One of the appealing aspects about GTK desktops is the significant availability of apps.
For GTK users, building TDE in a similar manner would help induce users to pick and choose
non GTK apps from TDE.
Not to mention reducing build and debugging issues. :)
Darrell
8:39 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Qt3 legal issues?
On 19 December 2011 15:33, Darrell Anderson <humanreadable(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Even KDE is making this approach with their next generation of libraries.
the kde 5 framework will be much much more modular allowing for using
applications cross-environment.
Many smaller libraries rather than huge monolithic libraries are the better
way to go!
Calvin Morrison
They are split
Let's hope
so. Anyway I had an idea about whole Trinity, I
already
talked about this with Calvin and he liked this idea.
I'd split whole trinity into 3 components: Trinity Libs,
Trinity
Desktop Enviroment and Trinity Apps. And call the whole
thing Trinity
Project
Trinity libs: qt3, tdelibs and other libs we provide
TDE: things only needed for desktop Enviroment. panels,
menus,
kcontrol, kwin ecc...
Trinity apps: apps based on Trinity libs, but which do not
require TDE
to be run.
What do you think about it?
Besides, split current tde* monolithic groups into single
apps. Do we
have any reason to keep them as they are?
As I just mentioned in another response, I VERY MUCH like the idea of
modularization. I think that would be a great R15 priority. (R14 sorely
needs to focus on paper cuts. :) )
One of the appealing aspects about GTK desktops is the significant
availability of apps. For GTK users, building TDE in a similar manner would
help induce users to pick and choose non GTK apps from TDE.
Not to mention reducing build and debugging issues. :)
Darrell
8:43 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Qt3 legal issues?
On Monday 19 December 2011 22:33:28 Darrell Anderson wrote:
[...]
As I just mentioned in another response, I VERY MUCH
like the idea of
modularization. I think that would be a great R15 priority. (R14 sorely
needs to focus on paper cuts. :) )
One of the appealing aspects about GTK desktops is the significant
availability of apps. For GTK users, building TDE in a similar manner would
help induce users to pick and choose non GTK apps from TDE.
Is not the same situation. While most "gnome" apps are written in pure
GTK+, "trinity" apps are highly integrated with TDE (dcop, style, color
theme, icon theme, fonts, printing, etc).
Not to mention reducing build and debugging issues.
:)
Darrell
--
Serghei
10:10 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Qt3 legal issues?
On 19 December 2011 15:43, Serghei Amelian <serghei(a)thel.ro> wrote:
On Monday 19 December 2011 22:33:28 Darrell Anderson
wrote:
[...]
Meh, disagree.
All GNOME apps pull in gnome dependencies. not all GTK+ apps are GNOME apps
however.
They have their own integration, priniting, theming, using dbus etc.
As I just mentioned in another response, I VERY
MUCH like the idea of
modularization. I think that would be a great R15 priority. (R14 sorely
needs to focus on paper cuts. :) )
One of the appealing aspects about GTK desktops is the significant
availability of apps. For GTK users, building TDE in a similar manner
would
help induce users to pick and choose non GTK apps
from TDE.
Is not the same situation. While most "gnome" apps are written in pure
GTK+, "trinity" apps are highly integrated with TDE (dcop, style, color
theme, icon theme, fonts, printing, etc).
10:24 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Qt3 legal issues?
On Tuesday 20 December 2011 00:10:01 Calvin Morrison wrote:
[...]
Of course, this is valid for _gnome_ apps. But, for example, you consider Gimp
being Gnome application? Yes? But I can run Gimp without gnome libraries. You
can run Krita without kdelibs?
--
Serghei
Is not the
same situation. While most "gnome" apps are written in pure
GTK+, "trinity" apps are highly integrated with TDE (dcop, style, color
theme, icon theme, fonts, printing, etc).
Meh, disagree.
All GNOME apps pull in gnome dependencies. not all GTK+ apps are GNOME apps
however.
They have their own integration, priniting, theming, using dbus etc.
11:14 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Qt3 legal issues?
2011/12/19 Serghei Amelian <serghei(a)thel.ro>ro>:
On Tuesday 20 December 2011 00:10:01 Calvin Morrison
wrote:
[...]
Of course, this is valid for _gnome_ apps. But, for example, you consider Gimp
being Gnome application? Yes? But I can run Gimp without gnome libraries. You
can run Krita without kdelibs?
--
Serghei
No, I do not consider Gimp being Gnome application. I consider gnome
applications all that comes by default with gnome DE.
Is not
the same situation. While most "gnome" apps are written in pure
GTK+, "trinity" apps are highly integrated with TDE (dcop, style, color
theme, icon theme, fonts, printing, etc).
Meh, disagree.
All GNOME apps pull in gnome dependencies. not all GTK+ apps are GNOME apps
however.
They have their own integration, priniting, theming, using dbus etc.
11:26 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Qt3 legal issues?
L0ner sh4dou wrote:
No, I do not consider Gimp being Gnome application. I
consider gnome
applications all that comes by default with gnome DE.
That's about 650 packages:
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/
The real trick is to know the order to build them and what you can leave
out.
-- Bruce
11:38 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Qt3 legal issues?
2011/12/20 Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs(a)gmail.com>om>:
L0ner sh4dou wrote:
And trinity isn't and probably won't be about 600 packages.
No, I do not consider Gimp being Gnome
application. I consider gnome
applications all that comes by default with gnome DE.
That's about 650 packages:
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/
The real trick is to know the order to build them and what you can leave
out.
11:54 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Qt3 legal issues?
L0ner sh4dou wrote:
2011/12/20 Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs(a)gmail.com>om>:
> L0ner sh4dou wrote:
>
>> No, I do not consider Gimp being Gnome application. I consider gnome
>> applications all that comes by default with gnome DE.
>
> That's about 650 packages:
>
> http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/
>
> The real trick is to know the order to build them and what you can leave
> out.
>
And trinity isn't and probably won't be about
600 packages.
No, it's 20, not counting qt.
-- Bruce
4519
days inactive
4519
days old
13 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Bruce Dubbs -
Calvin Morrison -
Darrell Anderson -
L0ner sh4dou -
Serghei Amelian -
Timothy Pearson