nanogui: Thread: Why Microwin

Hi all,

I have to choose the graphical system to our embedded Linux system
the two competitors are QT and Microwin.
Since the documentation is not the best part of microwindows, 
I need some help to understand what makes Microwindows better.
One more question I have is what exactly it meant by saying in the Docs 
that it takes 50 - 250 kb, What exactly did you measure?

Thanks,
Idit

What are the royalties (if any) associated with QT?

John

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Idit Neuman" ####@####.####
To: "Nanogui (E-mail)" ####@####.####
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:35 AM
Subject: Why Microwin


> Hi all,
> 
> I have to choose the graphical system to our embedded Linux system
> the two competitors are QT and Microwin.
> Since the documentation is not the best part of microwindows, 
> I need some help to understand what makes Microwindows better.
> One more question I have is what exactly it meant by saying in the Docs 
> that it takes 50 - 250 kb, What exactly did you measure?
> 
> Thanks,
> Idit
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> 
> 

John Waldron wrote:
> 
> What are the royalties (if any) associated with QT?

Qt Embedded and the Q Palmtop Environment are GPL'd, so as long as you
don't send out any proprietary GUI apps there are no royalties.

If you plan to use proprietary GUI apps there is a per-developer fee,
details at http://www.trolltech.com/products/purchase/pricingemb.html.

Dre

> 
> John
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Idit Neuman" ####@####.####
> To: "Nanogui (E-mail)" ####@####.####
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:35 AM
> Subject: Why Microwin
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have to choose the graphical system to our embedded Linux system
> > the two competitors are QT and Microwin.
> > Since the documentation is not the best part of microwindows,
> > I need some help to understand what makes Microwindows better.
> > One more question I have is what exactly it meant by saying in the Docs
> > that it takes 50 - 250 kb, What exactly did you measure?

: I need some help to understand what makes Microwindows better.
: One more question I have is what exactly it meant by saying in the Docs 

Read my interview in this month's (Mar 2001) Linux Journal.
I cover some of the reasons why Qt, Microwindows, and
PocketLinux each have their advantages.  In a nutshell,
you're limited to using _only_ Qt widget set programs
if you run Qt/E.  If you have Qt programs, from KDE, etc,
then this could be the best solution.  If however, you want
flexibility or don't know all the applications you may need
to run, then Microwindows is probably a better solution.
The PocketLinux solution is possibly best for pure-java
solutions.



: that it takes 50 - 250 kb, What exactly did you measure?

In this case, this is the executable size of Microwindows,
it can be varied between about 48k at the low end to
quite a lot bigger, through the use of extensive compile
time options.

Regards,

Greg

On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Andreas Pour wrote:
> If you plan to use proprietary GUI apps there is a per-developer fee,

They (Trolltech) require you to both purchase a (quite expensive)
"developers license" for every developer, and pay per unit licence fees to
distribute the application. Does anyone know how much their per unit
licence fees are?

Microwindows, on the other hand:
Developer's licence $0.
Per unit royalty $0.

If you want/need commercial support for Microwindows (as opposed to the
free community support you can get via this and other mailing lists),
I'm sure Century will be only too happy to provide it for you.

-- 
------- Alex Holden -------
http://www.linuxhacker.org/
 http://www.robogeeks.org/

Andreas Pour wrote:
> 
> John Waldron wrote:
> >
> > What are the royalties (if any) associated with QT?
> 
> Qt Embedded and the Q Palmtop Environment are GPL'd, so as long as you
> don't send out any proprietary GUI apps there are no royalties.
> 
> If you plan to use proprietary GUI apps there is a per-developer fee,
> details at http://www.trolltech.com/products/purchase/pricingemb.html.

What follows is a Trolltech response to my direct request regarding this
very issue.

.....

Qt/Embedded is licensed both under a commercial license and under GPL
(the socalled Free Edition).  The versions are identical code-wise. The
only difference is in the licensing. We provide Open Source developers
with the same high-quality tools as the commercial developers get.

This means that you can develop Qt/Embedded software free of charge if
the software you develop is also released under the GPL license (thus
open source). Furthermore, as long as the device you install this
software on is only delivered with GPL'ed software you can also use
Qt/Embedded on the device without purchasing runtime licenses.

In case you develop closed source software for your organization or
another customer, we can offer you commercial development licenses and
runtime licenses for the end devices. If you develop GPL'ed software for
a device which also is delivered with closed source software, the device
needs runtime licenses for Qt/Embedded.

Commercial customers will benefit from professional support and services
and will not be restricted by the GPL licensing conditions.

.....


> 
> Dre
> 
> >
> > John
> >


Note that this says that as long as ALL of the software on the device is
GPLed, then you're OK...

Our MyLinux Pocket Linux Workstation project uses only 100% GPLd
software and other GPL-like licenses for things such as
NanoZilla...etc...so we're clear in terms of this response, however, my
reading of the GPL isn't exactly this way.  I probably need to re-read
the GPL to see if I can gleem anything new regarding this specific
point, but at least you now have this response from Trolltech...besides,
we're currently using mostly Microwin/Nanox for now, anyway :)


Take Care.

Rob!

I think what is interesting about QT's stance is that with these multiple
licenses, they can basically charge anyone who makes money from shipping
their product, potentially.

Most product developers wouldn't use entirely GPL'd code because of having
to release their source to their customers (and potentially their
competetors).  Therefore, they would take advantage of dynamic modules, LGPL
libs and the like to protect their "IP".  What will be interesting to see is
whether or not this strategy works for QT.  My personal belief is that those
people who develop products on Linux do so for at least one very important
reason: NO Run-Time cost while still keeping their IP safe.

I am sure that some folks will GPL all their code because they are trying to
move HW, but others will not and I do not believe that those people will
tolerate a run-time royalty and, voila! Microwindows/Nano-X to the rescue!

John

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Wehrli" ####@####.####
To: "Nanogui (E-mail)" ####@####.####
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Why Microwin


> Andreas Pour wrote:
> >
> > John Waldron wrote:
> > >
> > > What are the royalties (if any) associated with QT?
> >
> > Qt Embedded and the Q Palmtop Environment are GPL'd, so as long as you
> > don't send out any proprietary GUI apps there are no royalties.
> >
> > If you plan to use proprietary GUI apps there is a per-developer fee,
> > details at http://www.trolltech.com/products/purchase/pricingemb.html.
>
> What follows is a Trolltech response to my direct request regarding this
> very issue.
>
> .....
>
> Qt/Embedded is licensed both under a commercial license and under GPL
> (the socalled Free Edition).  The versions are identical code-wise. The
> only difference is in the licensing. We provide Open Source developers
> with the same high-quality tools as the commercial developers get.
>
> This means that you can develop Qt/Embedded software free of charge if
> the software you develop is also released under the GPL license (thus
> open source). Furthermore, as long as the device you install this
> software on is only delivered with GPL'ed software you can also use
> Qt/Embedded on the device without purchasing runtime licenses.
>
> In case you develop closed source software for your organization or
> another customer, we can offer you commercial development licenses and
> runtime licenses for the end devices. If you develop GPL'ed software for
> a device which also is delivered with closed source software, the device
> needs runtime licenses for Qt/Embedded.
>
> Commercial customers will benefit from professional support and services
> and will not be restricted by the GPL licensing conditions.
>
> .....
>
>
> >
> > Dre
> >
> > >
> > > John
> > >
>
>
> Note that this says that as long as ALL of the software on the device is
> GPLed, then you're OK...
>
> Our MyLinux Pocket Linux Workstation project uses only 100% GPLd
> software and other GPL-like licenses for things such as
> NanoZilla...etc...so we're clear in terms of this response, however, my
> reading of the GPL isn't exactly this way.  I probably need to re-read
> the GPL to see if I can gleem anything new regarding this specific
> point, but at least you now have this response from Trolltech...besides,
> we're currently using mostly Microwin/Nanox for now, anyway :)
>
>
> Take Care.
>
> Rob!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
>
>

I agree that QT has yet to prove that it's business model is sound. 
Sometimes it is just easier to close certain parts of the source, and
risk
annoying the open source community rather than open it all up, and try
to police all the abuses of your license.  Thats alot of revenue lost 
as you run to court every time a gray area pops up.  Of course, QT has
managed to make it very hard to slip a single program in a distribution,
since they require an extensive runtime system from top to bottom, so I
am sure that that makes abuses of the license easier to spot.

Now that Linux has become more popular, and especially since it has
really become a force in the embedded / PDA world, we are going to see
more of this happening.  Now, all of a sudden, two worlds are clashing,
the open source world that gave life to the Linux revolution, and the
money that will make sure that it it continues to exist.  The question
remains:  how do we make money off our really good code while at the
same time making sure that it stays open to public innovation.  If
anyone has a fail-safe answer to that question, please respond
immediately!

Anyway, I should get off my soap box.  Thanks for your support with
Microwindows, FLNX and ViewML.  

Keep on hacking!
Jordan

      John Waldron wrote:
> 
> I think what is interesting about QT's stance is that with these multiple
> licenses, they can basically charge anyone who makes money from shipping
> their product, potentially.
> 
> Most product developers wouldn't use entirely GPL'd code because of having
> to release their source to their customers (and potentially their
> competetors).  Therefore, they would take advantage of dynamic modules, LGPL
> libs and the like to protect their "IP".  What will be interesting to see is
> whether or not this strategy works for QT.  My personal belief is that those
> people who develop products on Linux do so for at least one very important
> reason: NO Run-Time cost while still keeping their IP safe.
> 
> I am sure that some folks will GPL all their code because they are trying to
> move HW, but others will not and I do not believe that those people will
> tolerate a run-time royalty and, voila! Microwindows/Nano-X to the rescue!
> 
> John
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Wehrli" ####@####.####
> To: "Nanogui (E-mail)" ####@####.####
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 10:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Why Microwin
> 
> > Andreas Pour wrote:
> > >
> > > John Waldron wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What are the royalties (if any) associated with QT?
> > >
> > > Qt Embedded and the Q Palmtop Environment are GPL'd, so as long as you
> > > don't send out any proprietary GUI apps there are no royalties.
> > >
> > > If you plan to use proprietary GUI apps there is a per-developer fee,
> > > details at http://www.trolltech.com/products/purchase/pricingemb.html.
> >
> > What follows is a Trolltech response to my direct request regarding this
> > very issue.
> >
> > .....
> >
> > Qt/Embedded is licensed both under a commercial license and under GPL
> > (the socalled Free Edition).  The versions are identical code-wise. The
> > only difference is in the licensing. We provide Open Source developers
> > with the same high-quality tools as the commercial developers get.
> >
> > This means that you can develop Qt/Embedded software free of charge if
> > the software you develop is also released under the GPL license (thus
> > open source). Furthermore, as long as the device you install this
> > software on is only delivered with GPL'ed software you can also use
> > Qt/Embedded on the device without purchasing runtime licenses.
> >
> > In case you develop closed source software for your organization or
> > another customer, we can offer you commercial development licenses and
> > runtime licenses for the end devices. If you develop GPL'ed software for
> > a device which also is delivered with closed source software, the device
> > needs runtime licenses for Qt/Embedded.
> >
> > Commercial customers will benefit from professional support and services
> > and will not be restricted by the GPL licensing conditions.
> >
> > .....
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dre
> > >
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> >
> >
> > Note that this says that as long as ALL of the software on the device is
> > GPLed, then you're OK...
> >
> > Our MyLinux Pocket Linux Workstation project uses only 100% GPLd
> > software and other GPL-like licenses for things such as
> > NanoZilla...etc...so we're clear in terms of this response, however, my
> > reading of the GPL isn't exactly this way.  I probably need to re-read
> > the GPL to see if I can gleem anything new regarding this specific
> > point, but at least you now have this response from Trolltech...besides,
> > we're currently using mostly Microwin/Nanox for now, anyway :)
> >
> >
> > Take Care.
> >
> > Rob!
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> > For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> >
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####