News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Verdigris: Qt without moc. Parent comment

Re:Verdigris: Qt without moc by e12e on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @02:36PM (#11772039)
> I never understood the rationale behind CopperSpice, especially not why they felt the need to fork the entire codebase instead of trying to work within the boundaries of Qt itself.

They actually go into this in the introduction of their CppCon '15 talk:

"CppCon 2015: Barbara Geller & Ansel Sermersheim “CopperSpice: A Pure C++ GUI Library"" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LIiwBNvTllk

I don't quite get it either - they appear afraid of the contributer agreement - but I don't get it. So what if a contribution ends up in a closed source product; it's not like they could revoke the rights to code already published; the worst that could happen is that the community would have to fork if/when the at project discontinued the free licenced part (see open solaris).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Verdigris: Qt without moc by ericfrederich on Thursday May 26, 2016 @12:51PM (#11779445)
It seems they wren't happy with the bootstrapping process which involved a lot of ifdefs either.

They claim to have cleaned up a lot of the code base by not involving moc.

[ Parent | on HN ]