corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: Is Qt the right choice ??
Date Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:56:52 GMT
It would certainly be possible to do an editor outside of the project, whether LibreCorinthia
or some other.  That would still allow use of components from Apache Corinthia that are provided
under ALv2.  Anyone can do that.  (And PayMeCorinthia could be done using the Commercial Qt
license.)

If an editor is to be a release from Corinthia, the challenge is to not have a requirement
for Qt, however that is accomplished.  I have not suggested that having an editor be abandoned.
 I have suggested that having Qt be essential as the UI framework is a deal breaker.

 - Dennis

RELATED THOUGHTS

(This probably should be on a separate thread, but I think it figures into the thinking about
editors and whatever frameworks are used.)

Experience on another user-facing project suggests that producing a branded editor is a bad
idea, because of versions that will be produced using the same code but (1) loaded with adware
and other unpleasant artifacts and (2) used to charge fees while being passed off as the authentic
project-supported version.  This creates an intolerable support situation.  We know this happens
in App stores for mobile devices and tablets and the culprits will pay for favorable ad placement.

I had not been thinking of this as part of this conversation, but I think that end-user-intended
editors released in source code from Corinthia itself should be white-label reference developer/testing
implementations that identify themselves as such.  Although fully functional for end-user
employment, they don't produce store-acceptable binaries without additional effort.  That's
what buildbots should make.  There should be no support for those builds, although one wants
to see developer use and feedback, and well as QA against them.  But they are not intended
as end-user supported products (sort of perpetual beta instead).

Any project-provided binary distribution should instead be branded in the build process with
custom information that is not released.  This includes any distinctive images, links to help
and support, and digital signatures provided by the Apache Corinthia project along with other
measures that qualify the result for inclusion in an app store. Where/how that has to be done
is accounted for in the source and in the build process, so someone can build their own branded
version -- just not easily free-load/impersonate any authentic end-user binary from the project.
 This also includes code-signing and other actions to satisfy requirements of various product
stores.  This will protect the Apache Corinthia trademark and branding and also make it difficult
both technically and legally for opportunistic folks to pass off a look-alike built on the
same code or as a wrapper on a white-label build.  What we don't want is anything about support
and sources of information to be bolted into anything but these branded distributions.  



-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kelly [mailto:pmkelly@apache.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 01:01
To: dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is Qt the right choice ??

> On 28 Jul 2015, at 5:59 am, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> 
> I think the question is, "Can the editor be built and used without including anything
from Qt in order to compile, distribute, and run it?"
> 
> If not, the editor should not be in Corinthia.  

So what is your proposal for how we should proceed with the desktop editor, other than not
doing it?

LibreCorinthia?

—
Dr Peter M. Kelly
pmkelly@apache.org

PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
(fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)



Mime
View raw message