<div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 20 September 2016 at 22:54, Thomas Pfeiffer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thomas.pfeiffer@kde.org" target="_blank">thomas.pfeiffer@kde.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><span><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
Certainly not. AGPL is like GPL in that sense, with the extra rule<br>
that you must publish the source code even if you're only giving<br>
access over the network and not distributing binaries.<br>
<br>
I don't think an AGPL library makes much sense though.<br>
<br>
<br>
ALGPL makes sense then :)<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
On the other hand: Is Qt still used much for web services? And if so: Are our frameworks of much use for those?<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:small" class="gmail_default">There are Qt related projects that facilitate adding web service compatibility to a traditional code (example I tried recently: qhttpengine). QML is network transparent, and web services with QML has been advertised by some contributors. There were commercial endeavors such as Enginio. Many more examples I just forgot about.<br><br>I don't see these things advertised that as much (and infantile) as all the "awesome" web things that so often live for one year and die, or transforming themselves without looking back or caring for compatibility and are encouraging copy-paste type of usages.<br><br>When asking about local vs web computing there seems to be apparent polarization, you switch tools every time you move from one world to another. That does not need to be a rule.<br><br></div> </div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
I think this might be more of an edge case. I suppose that if we're doing web stuff, it's more likely to be full applications rather than libraries.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:small" class="gmail_default">Well I'd like to see such usage increasing. Not to create unholy mix but to truly continue the x0 years old concept of client-server computing, just differently named artifacts.<br><br>I think certain already good apps and libs from FOSS would be even better and more popular if they have support use cases that require web services and if placing some of the logic on the server would be an officially supported feature. Certainly also my modest usage would increase too (two Qt projects at the moment) so the ALGPL term isn't a nonsense for me.<br><br></div><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:small" class="gmail_default">Programming for a local workstation is simpler, maybe that's why many C++ developers start there and and also stay in where the sweet spot is. For example the last time when a contributor offered help in adding to support for Oracle server in my KDE project... it was in 2004.<br></div><br>-- <br><div>regards, Jaroslaw Staniek<br><br>KDE:<br>: A world-wide network of software engineers, artists, writers, translators<br>: and facilitators committed to Free Software development - <a href="http://kde.org" target="_blank">http://kde.org</a><br>Calligra Suite:<br>: A graphic art and office suite - <a href="http://calligra.org" target="_blank">http://calligra.org</a><br>Kexi:<br>: A visual database apps builder - <a href="http://calligra.org/kexi" target="_blank">http://calligra.org/kexi</a><br>Qt Certified Specialist:<br>: <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/in/<wbr>jstaniek</a></div>
</div></div>