corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <>
Subject Re: Is Qt the right choice ??
Date Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:53:15 GMT
On 29 July 2015 at 17:56, Dennis E. Hamilton <>

> 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.)

It would most certainly also be possible for Corinthia to do an editor, see
my other thread.

I will not start making projects outside apache, just for sake of a
discussion. Many projects in apache face similar problems, and some of the
have solved the problems
in a similar way as I suggest.

Could we please focus on getting corinthia working, and then later maybe
somebody else does something else !

> 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.
You did not use the word "abandoned" but there were no doubt that you did
not see an editor being part of corinthia

Nobody have ever talked about making Qt essential, the word "optional" has
always been used, because the implementation will of course be in a way
that it
can be replaced. It is however a misunderstand to assume that we have to
provide multiple implementation for an optional component of the project.

>  - Dennis
> (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.
yes and no, it only creates that situation if we as project delivers
binaries. AOO is to my knowledge the only project that declares the
binaries for official.

> 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.
First sentence is wrong !! Apache never provides binary releases, an apache
release is a source release. The project can produce convenience binaries
but they
are not release objects. I am aware that AOO is a special case, but we
(corinthia) should not try to go down that road.

jan i.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Kelly []
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 01:01
> To:
> Subject: Re: Is Qt the right choice ??
> > On 28 Jul 2015, at 5:59 am, Dennis E. Hamilton <>
> 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
> PGP key: <>
> (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message