[PyKDE] PyQwt win32 binary?

[Phil Thompson]

Scott Prive wrote:
> 
> Phil Thompson wrote:
> 
> > Scott Prive wrote:
> > >
> > > Phil Thompson wrote:
> 
> > [snip..]
> 
> >
> > Be fair - if somebody said (not that they have) "people won't license
> > our Qt development tools if you provide one for free" then I would
> > sympathise with them completely. It is in nobody's interest to put
> > Trolltech out of business (least of all mine). What Trolltech have done
> > is to help us considerably lower the entry cost of Qt development. They
> > are taking a risk and I applaud them for doing so. They will lose some
> > revenue because some businesses are going to choose to develop in Python
> > rather than C++ purely because the software purchase costs are less (a
> > really stupid reason if you ask me). But (hopefully) they will gain much
> > more than they lose because Qt development is now within the reach of
> > millions of home and business users.
> 
> Mmm.. I see and partially agree with your points. I am sympathetic to Troll Tech's
> balancing act, but at the same time "almost free" solutions usually siphon off the
> demand for "truly free" offerings. I don't think even a Tk partisan would defend that
> toolkit on the grounds of simple elegance, usability, or asthetics (more like
> crossplatform, abundance of code, and more free).
> 
> I still maintain Troll Tech is only hurting themselves, and Qt, by insisting you can
> write free software for UNIX but not for Windows. This runs counter to Qt's strong
> crossplatform abilities. I feel these restrictions limit the number of people who go
> from "dabbling" in Qt to really learning it in and out. Qt programmers are few and far
> between, and that alone was the reason I saw an UNIX & NT application go the way of
> MFC + portability libraries, when the developers wanted to use Qt. Qt is considered
> too "niche" and talent is scarce compared to MFC. Allowing GPL'd Qt development on
> Windows wouldn't necessarily change all this, but it might belp (especially since more
> people would adopt it). Windows has lots of "freeware" users, even if they haven't
> been properly introduced to the GPL & BSD licenses. Troll Tech is tying its fortunes
> to widespread adoption of Linux development (and full commercial licenses), when the
> likely reality is most initial applications will be ported using WINE or one of the
> commercial porting kits like Bristol.

I agree in that I'd love to see Trolltech release a GPLed Windows
version. What you are suggesting is what Sun did years ago and focus on
the educational market so that graduates would go to their new employers
acting as an extension of the Sun marketing team.

I can only assume that Trolltech are happy with the way things are going
at the moment.

> > > This last paragraph is not so much a question, but a rant.   I think a lot of
> > > people want to write Linux software, but at the same time offer it for Windows
> > > (even though Windows users don't deserve it. heh :)
> >
> > Give your application away on Linux and charge Windows user's for it
> > (not much) as they expect to pay for software anyway.
> 
> True but that won't change if they aren't exposed to free software. I was telling my
> stepfather about Linux (he uses Windows), and the comment I got was "how do you
> MAKE people write software for free? Someone has to pay for it". It's a popular
> misconception in the Windows space. What keeps a lot of people tied to Windows is not
> IE or Office, but all these dinky Visual Basic applications they enounter (yes most
> are shareware... forget free or commercial for the sake of arguement).

Your stepfather is right - somebody does have to pay for it - the
author.

> Does the Personal license for Black Adder allow one to distribute "free
> software" (even for Windows)? I just want to make little apps to catalog cheese,
> insults, or a Hungarian Phrasebook. Most people I know still run Windows, but would
> appreciate these type of apps.

You would need the Business Edition.

Phil