I feel cheated.
-
I downloaded and installed 5.11 of Qt (about a 5 hour process). Now I'm trying example 1 of the book, which starts with #include <QApplication>. VS can't find that. Anybody know what I'm supposed to put in my "include"project settings? I found the \Qt\5.11.1\winrt_armv7_msvc2017\include\qtwidgets folder, but that blows up on the next included .h file with: 1>c:\qt\5.11.1\winrt_armv7_msvc2017\include\qtwidgets\qapplication.h(43): fatal error C1083: Cannot open include file: 'QtWidgets/qtwidgetsglobal.h': No such file or directory, like it's looking for another qtwidgets folder.
Any quidance would be appreciated.@chrtsi said in I feel cheated.:
Now I'm trying example 1 of the book, which starts with #include <QApplication>. VS can't find that. Anybody know what I'm supposed to put in my "include"project settings?
Sorry, but this is one of the things that you cannot just transfer from a Qt4 book to Qt5. Modules have been introduced, so QtWidgets are not the default and your project must explicitly specify that it wants to use it. Using a Qt5 book for learning to program with Qt5 is definitely preferable.
-
I know it's troll bait, but I do have to agree with the OP about licensing fees. Monthly use fees are criminal. Really, for as much as I hate windoze, the .net dev model is really the most fair one in the industry: buy once, and use that version forever without restrictions on redistributables.
I light my way forward with the fires of all the bridges I've burned behind me.
-
I know it's troll bait, but I do have to agree with the OP about licensing fees. Monthly use fees are criminal. Really, for as much as I hate windoze, the .net dev model is really the most fair one in the industry: buy once, and use that version forever without restrictions on redistributables.
@Kent-Dorfman said in I feel cheated.:
the .net dev model is really the most fair one in the industry: buy once, and use that version forever without restrictions on redistributables.
What about the LGPL perpetually free license for Qt?
Qt Doc Search for browsers: forum.qt.io/topic/35616/web-browser-extension-for-improved-doc-searches
-
I know it's troll bait, but I do have to agree with the OP about licensing fees. Monthly use fees are criminal. Really, for as much as I hate windoze, the .net dev model is really the most fair one in the industry: buy once, and use that version forever without restrictions on redistributables.
@Kent-Dorfman Like almost everything in life, the listed licensing fees are basis for negotiation.
Contact the sales team, make it clear you want a license and aren't just trolling and stuff may or may not happen to your favor.
I don't agree with this approach, but its common practice throughout the world.
I personal always ask for the price I actually want, that might be why I'm so terrible and selling and rather (financially) poor x) -
@Kent-Dorfman said in I feel cheated.:
the .net dev model is really the most fair one in the industry: buy once, and use that version forever without restrictions on redistributables.
What about the LGPL perpetually free license for Qt?
@JKSH said in I feel cheated.:
@Kent-Dorfman said in I feel cheated.:
the .net dev model is really the most fair one in the industry: buy once, and use that version forever without restrictions on redistributables.
What about the LGPL perpetually free license for Qt?
The OP was about commercial licensing fees. the LGPL is still a fuzzy area that any company concerned about litigation would do well to stay away from. You too easily get into the "derivative works" issue. ...and really, commercial use should incur some sort of fee; just not the WindRiver model of paying, paying,and paying some more, ad infinitum.
I light my way forward with the fires of all the bridges I've burned behind me.
-
@JKSH said in I feel cheated.:
@Kent-Dorfman said in I feel cheated.:
the .net dev model is really the most fair one in the industry: buy once, and use that version forever without restrictions on redistributables.
What about the LGPL perpetually free license for Qt?
The OP was about commercial licensing fees. the LGPL is still a fuzzy area that any company concerned about litigation would do well to stay away from. You too easily get into the "derivative works" issue. ...and really, commercial use should incur some sort of fee; just not the WindRiver model of paying, paying,and paying some more, ad infinitum.
@Kent-Dorfman said in I feel cheated.:
the LGPL is still a fuzzy area that any company concerned about litigation would do well to stay away from
I disagree, on both counts.
-
I know it's troll bait, but I do have to agree with the OP about licensing fees. Monthly use fees are criminal. Really, for as much as I hate windoze, the .net dev model is really the most fair one in the industry: buy once, and use that version forever without restrictions on redistributables.
Monthly use fees are criminal
This cruel business world, everybody just wants to make money out of simple folks. What a criminals, demanding to be paid for their commercial product on their conditions, that is just outrageous.
-
@JKSH said in I feel cheated.:
@Kent-Dorfman said in I feel cheated.:
the .net dev model is really the most fair one in the industry: buy once, and use that version forever without restrictions on redistributables.
What about the LGPL perpetually free license for Qt?
The OP was about commercial licensing fees. the LGPL is still a fuzzy area that any company concerned about litigation would do well to stay away from. You too easily get into the "derivative works" issue. ...and really, commercial use should incur some sort of fee; just not the WindRiver model of paying, paying,and paying some more, ad infinitum.
@Kent-Dorfman said in I feel cheated.:
The OP was about commercial licensing fees. the LGPL is still a fuzzy area that any company concerned about litigation would do well to stay away from. You too easily get into the "derivative works" issue.
The LGPL was created for the very purpose of allowing a free library to be used in a proprietary project.
It also caters very well to those who want to use the library but cannot or don't want to pay the commercial licensing fee (and this solves the problem of a fee that's too high, no?)
...and really, commercial use should incur some sort of fee
I agree that if someone gains commercially from a library, they should reciprocate somehow. This reciprocation has traditionally been in the form of monetary payment (e.g. licensing fees) to the library's developers.
However, the dual-licensing model provides another option: To pay what you want (and pay however much or little you want) by contributing time, expertise, or code to the library's community/ecosystem. It doesn't have to be cash.
-
If you choose the second option, and it is not cash, what is it? Knowledge, advertising or something else. just don't understand. Can it be used on Chromebox for example?
@Leonart13 said in I feel cheated.:
If you choose the second option, and it is not cash, what is it? Knowledge, advertising or something else. just don't understand
Like I said in my post, you can "pay" by contributing time, expertise, or code to the library's community/ecosystem. You could make publish your app under a Free and Open Source license to benefit others. You could submit patches for new features of bug fixes to Qt itself. You could give your time to teach others how to use Qt effectively.
-
I know it's troll bait, but I do have to agree with the OP about licensing fees. Monthly use fees are criminal. Really, for as much as I hate windoze, the .net dev model is really the most fair one in the industry: buy once, and use that version forever without restrictions on redistributables.
@Kent-Dorfman said in I feel cheated.:
I know it's troll bait, but I do have to agree with the OP about licensing fees. Monthly use fees are criminal. Really, for as much as I hate windoze, the .net dev model is really the most fair one in the industry: buy once, and use that version forever without restrictions on redistributables.
+1. And Qt license used to work the same way in the past, too. Maybe it still does, I'm not sure.
