QBall

Arcade

Source (link to git-repo or to original if based on someone elses unmodified work): Add the source-code for this project on git.opendesktop.org

0
Score 50%
Description:

QBall is a simple breakout clone, available for Symbian, Android, Windows and Linux. Note that it’s primarily intended to be played on Nokia Symbian and Android smartphones/tablets, rather than desktops, but it was easy to port thanks to Qt :)

For Android and Symbian, please download from:

Android, Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.sourceforge.q_ball

Symbian, Nokia Store: Coming Soon!

C

mdwh

8 years ago

Source code is now available (because someone asked for it, not because it's required by using Qt, as someone wrongly asserts above...:).

I'll move my other non-open source app in a moment.

Incidentally, forgive me if I missed something obvious, but when going through the submission process I saw nothing stating the requirement for open source ("Free" can be free as in speech, or free as in beer, so is ambigious).

Also, I wonder why it's possible to select non-Free licenses (even if Creative Commons are meant for things like graphics/sound, the Non Commercial licences are *not* considered Free or compatible with Open Source, either by the FSF or the OSI, AFAIK). So this made me think even more that it was okay.

3electrons notes that it's common to see people being asked to move applications, so presumable I'm not the only one who was unaware of this :) I wonder if the submission guidelines can be fixed or made more clear, and the list of available licences corrected? Thanks.

Report

Frank

8 years ago

Hi,

please move this to Qt-Prop.org if it is proprietary software.

Thanks

Cheers
Frank

Report

C

mdwh

8 years ago

Source code is now available under the GPL (because someone asked for it, not because it's required by using Qt, as someone wrongly asserts above...:).

Incidentally, forgive me if I missed something obvious, but when going through the submission process I saw nothing stating the requirement for open source ("Free" can be free as in speech, or free as in beer, so is ambigious). On top of that, there's no clear link to http://qt-prop.org that I can see, so I was unaware of its existence.

Also, I wonder why it's possible to select non-Free licenses (even if Creative Commons are meant for things like graphics/sound, the Non Commercial licences are *not* considered Free or compatible with Open Source, either by the FSF or the OSI, AFAIK). So this made me think even more that it was okay.

3electrons notes that it's common to see people being asked to move applications, so presumable I'm not the only one who was unaware of this :) I wonder if the submission guidelines can be fixed or made more clear, and the list of available licences corrected? Thanks.

Report

ssorgatem

8 years ago

Qt-Apps.org is only meant for Free Software Qt Applications.

For privative Qt applications you can post it in Qt-prop.org (propietary qt applications).

Posting closed-source applications here will only annoy you with people asking for the source code.

Report

undefined

8 years ago

I don't know how else to say it.
Quote:
This is a non-copyleft free license that is good for art and entertainment works, and educational works. Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL.
Creative Commons publishes many licenses which are very different. Therefore, to say that a work “uses a Creative Commons license” is to leave the principal questions about the work's licensing unanswered. When you see such a statement in a work, please ask the author to highlight the substance of the license choices. And if someone proposes to “use a Creative Commons license” for a certain work, it is vital to ask immediately, “Which one?”

http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#which-cc

Report

C

mdwh

8 years ago

That's the GPL *not* the LGPL. They are different licences. Qt is released under the LGPL, and has the crucical distinction that proprietary/closed source distribution is allowed with dynamic linking. Please read my reply above.

Also, from your own link http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html :

"In the middle are the “weakly protective” (“weak copyleft”) licenses, a compromise between permissive and strongly protective licenses. These prevent the software component (often a software library) from becoming proprietary, yet permit it to be part of a larger proprietary program. ... The GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) is the most popular weakly protective license, and has a version 2.1 (LGPLv2.1) and 3 (LGPLv3)."

(On the more general topic of using non-CC licences, are there licences suitable for closed source freeware apps? It seems that most freeware users seem to either write their own or simply say "freeware", but I think both of these are bad - it's better to use a known licence, that's been written by lawyers. And I don't think I'm the only one to think of CC for software - e.g., http://stackoverflow.com/questions/978477/closed-source-non-commercial-license. But when GNU say CC isn't good for software, they're only talking in the context of it not being Free Software - which isn't a problem here, since I'm not claiming these apps to be Free Software, nor do I have to according to the LGPL.)

Report

3electrons

8 years ago

Hi
Nice game :) I have just installed it on my phone. It might be nice to play with it using accelometer :).

I have 3 cents on license - you might be right. IMHO with that you do not valid any Qt license putting it on CC.
But I am not shure if you are not braking qt-apps.org rules. Please consider moving your app to qt-prop.org or simply attach source code on any open source license ;). I have seen pepole were asked to release the code or move it to qt-prop many times here.

Report

undefined

8 years ago

Hmm..
I'm missing the Source Code.
You can not move Qt's GPLv3 to CC License.
Please read http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

Report

C

mdwh

8 years ago

Qt is also licensed under the LGPL:

http://qt.nokia.com/downloads
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

which, as explained, allows proprietary applications.

The files for Windows and Symbian are certainly dynamically linked. My Linux-knowledge is limited (I just compiled with QtCreator's default settings), but from what I can tell (checking with ldd, and also testing with my system Qt libraries deleted), it's dynamically linked also.

If you want the source, I can make it available. However, to the best of my knowledge this is not a LGPL violation to release Qt closed source applications.

Report

File (click to download) Version Description PackagetypeArchitecture Downloads Date Filesize DL OCS-Install
Pling
Details
license
version
1.4
updated Apr 17 2012
added Aug 14 2010
downloads today
0
page views today 4
System Tags app software