is there really no good gui builder

[azrael]

whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and
that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time
during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one
project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I
tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only
descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped
in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something
descent.
I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in
python than in VB.

 

[Stef Mientki]

whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and
that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time
during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one
project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I
tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only
descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped
in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something
descent.
I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in
python than in VB.

Well I come from even a better GUI designer than VB,
so I can feel a little like you,
but at the moment I'm quite satisfied with wxPython.
Qt seems to be good, but I don't like their licence.
For wxPython there are a number of tools,
but I got none of them working.
I found XRC too difficult and so I made,
and now I'm almost as satisfied as where I came from ;-)
Here an description
http://mientki.ruhosting.nl/data_www/pylab_works/pw_gui_support.html
and you can find the source here
http://pylab-works.googlecode.com/files/Data_Python_Test_V1_5.zip

btw, why don't you stick to VB ?

cheers,
Stef

 

[sturlamolden]

I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in
python than in VB.

I find wxFormBuilder nice to work with. wxPython can use XRC-files
from wxFormBuilder.

Note that wx uses sizers (layout managers). While it makes GUIs a bit
slower to design, it makes it easier to deal with resizing of windows
and different screen resolutions.

If you use PyGTK there is GLADE; with PyQt there is QtDesigner.

http://sturlamolden.blogspot.com/2008/03/howto-using-wxformbuilder-with-wxpython.html

 

[Peter Decker]

whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and
that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time
during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one
project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I
tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only
descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped
in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something
descent.
I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in
python than in VB.

You should really check out Dabo: http://dabodev.com.

They have a great GUI designer that works interactively, and even
allows you to create database-aware applications without having to
know a ton about SQL. It's a very active and vibrant community, and
the authors are amazingly responsive.

 

[Mr.SpOOn]

Qt seems to be good, but I don't like their licence.

What's the problem with qt licence?

 

[Stef Mientki]

What's the problem with qt licence?

I can't change a commercial application into an open application and
vice-versa.
(And therefor I also have to maintain 2 versions)
cheers,
Stef

 

[Phil Thompson]

"You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Qt Software or from one
of its authorized resellers before you start developing commercial
software. The Commercial license does not allow the incorporation of
code developed with the Open Source Edition of Qt into a commercial
product."

In effect this means that if you want to develop any commercial software
with Qt you have to buy the license in advance (even if all you want is
to knock together some proof-of-concept) and you are also
permanently locked out from including any previously developed Qt code
which the wider community may have produced.

With other GPL licensed software you have the option of approaching
the original author and negotiating with them for their code to be
relicensed for use within your proprietary product (or the author
could simply distribute their code under a less restrictive
license to begin with), but the Qt license restricts you from using
anything publicly available *except for Qt itself*.

It is a novel interpretation of the GPL. Qt Software have every right to
impose this sort of condition, but it makes me want to avoid them.

PyQt has the same restrictions, and while the above is strictly correct, in
reality common sense would break out.

Obviously you can't predict the future and it's perfectly reasonable for
somebody with a successful open source project to want to make some money
from it at a later date. That's what happened with PyQt itself. Anybody in
that situation just has to have an adult conversation to come to a mutually
beneficial agreement.

On the other hand if you used the GPL versions for the 2 year development
of your application with the intention of buying the commercial versions at
the last minute, then that is taking the piss and is what the restrictions
are really about.

Phil

 

[Thorsten Kampe]

* azrael (Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:35:03 -0800 (PST))

whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and
that there is the best way to use WX.

Don't ask. Think for yourself. wxPython is in my humble opinion the most
popular but only the second best choice.

I am browsing for the 10th time during the last year and I can still
not bealive that there is not one project to make gui-building easy as
maybe in VB for python. Each I tried was a pain in the ass when it
comes to usability. The only descent one I've seen was Boa
constructor, but also they have stoped in developing. Please tell me
that there is at least something descent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_integrated_development_environments
_for_Python#Python

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GUI_builders

Does that help?

Thorsten

 

[Lie]

whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and
that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time
during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one
project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I
tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only
descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped
in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something
descent.
I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in
python than in VB.

alternatively, if you have the resources and time to do it, you could
create the GUI part of the program in whatever tool is easiest in your
platform of choice and have the underlying code in python. If your
program is widely used and have a permissive license, someone _might_
make a GUI for your portable CLI program.

 

[David Boddie]

This text is at <URL:http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing>,
for those following along at home.

The above statement is confusing and misleading. There is nothing
about the GPL that prevents commercial software; in fact, selling
software to support development is positively encouraged.

I agree that it's misleading, but it doesn't say anything about the GPL
preventing commercial software. It's easy to read something into it that
isn't there, though you could argue that it's implied somehow. Ideally,
it would say, "You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Qt Software
or from one of its authorized resellers before you start developing closed
source software for distribution."

[...]

What that page says could be correct if, instead of falsely claiming
that *commercial* software requires a separate license, it rather said
that if you want to redistribute Qt with *restrictions* on the
recipient additional to those in the GPL, you cannot use the GPL as
the license. They offer a separate license (the confusingly-named
?commercial license?) that permits some additional restrictions on
the recipient of your software.

Probably. That page has been a source of controversy for some time.

[...]

No, they have no such right to interpret the GPL this way; it would be
entirely incompatible with the GPL since it would be an imposition of
additional restrictions, resulting in work that could not legally be
redistributed at all.

If we're talking about the second sentence, it's not an interpretation of
the GPL. It is a restriction of the commercial license.

In fact, I don't think they are making such an interpretation, though
their poorly-worded web page that you quoted certainly encourages
readers to make such a false interpretation.

Agreed. The compromise in the terms used (commercial vs. proprietary or
closed source) is designed to encourage adoption of commercial licenses
rather than explain the situation, perhaps because there's the fear that
some developers won't pay attention to anything less than a strongly-worded
warning.

David

 

[Phil Thompson]

Thay aren't claiming that Qt itself is governed by the GPL, what they
are claiming is that the 'Qt Open Source License' permits you to use it
for development of "Open Source software governed by the GNU General
Public License versions 2 and 3". I believe they can make whatever
conditions they like for their own license.

This is just plain wrong. The open source version is licensed under either
v2 or v3 of the GPL - your choice. There is no such thing as a separate "Qt
Open Source License".

The GPL doesn't actually say you cannot redistribute work which adds
additional restrictions. It says "If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term."


It looks very much to me as though they are trying to make
that interpretation, it is repeated in a variety of forms across the
website. But it doesn't really matter whether they can make it stick or
not, I simply choose to avoid worrying about the issue by choosing
another platform where possible. (Which is a shame really as the small
amount of playing I did with Qt indicates it to be a very nice
platform.)

The license itself says:

....you mean the webpage, the license is the standard GPL with all that that
implies...

"This means that you cannot use a Qt Open Source Edition if your
software must be built with any modules that impose conditions on you
that contradict the conditions of the GNU GPL, including, but not
limited to, software patents, commercial license agreements,
copyrighted interface definitions or any sort of non-disclosure
agreement (NDA). In these circumstances you must use a commercial
edition of Qt."

That I guess taken literally that means you cannot use Qt Open Source
Edition if your software uses Qt Open Source Edition.

The only "additional" restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial*
license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage
commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their
development phase.

Phil

 

[Kevin Walzer]

The only "additional" restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial*
license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage
commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their
development phase.

Is this interpretation of Qt's license correct:

A developer may use the open-source edition of Qt to develop commercial
software with licenseing fees, provided that the developer releases the
product and source code under an open-source license compatible with the
GPL..

This means that if the developer is willing to take the risk of having
all product source code open, with the attendant possibility of a
modified version of the developer's product being freely redistributed
without code enforcing any licensing fees, then the developer may forego
paying commercial license fees to Qt (and Riverbank, if the product is
PyQt) and use the open-source version.

 

[Kevin Walzer]

The only "additional" restrictions are those imposed by the *commercial*
license. As I said before, those restrictions are intended to discourage
commercial developers from avoiding paying license costs during their
development phase.

Is this interpretation of Qt's license correct:

A developer may use the open-source edition of Qt to develop commercial
software with licenseing fees, provided that the developer releases the
product and source code under an open-source license compatible with the
GPL..

This means that if the developer is willing to take the risk of having
all product source code open, with the attendant possibility of a
modified version of the developer's product being freely redistributed
without code enforcing any licensing fees, then the developer may forego
paying commercial license fees to Qt (and Riverbank, if the product is
PyQt) and use the open-source version.

 

[Phil Thompson]

Is this interpretation of Qt's license correct:

A developer may use the open-source edition of Qt to develop commercial
software with licenseing fees, provided that the developer releases the
product and source code under an open-source license compatible with the
GPL..

This means that if the developer is willing to take the risk of having
all product source code open, with the attendant possibility of a
modified version of the developer's product being freely redistributed
without code enforcing any licensing fees, then the developer may forego
paying commercial license fees to Qt (and Riverbank, if the product is
PyQt) and use the open-source version.

If the above is a correct interpretation of the GPL, then yes.

Phil

 

[Terry Reedy]

That is a common misconception,

It looks to me like the plain reading of the Trolltech license. I think
one would be foolish to act on the belief that it does not mean what it
seems to mean. Trolltech must know how people interpret it and has had
years to change it. Since they have not, I presume it says what they mean.

> which is not made any better by
misleading text like that found at the above page, and misleading
dichotomies like GPL versus “commercial licenseâ€. A careful reader
of the GPL will see that there is explicitly *no* restriction placed
on redistributing the work commercially: any fee may be charged.

The operative license for QT is the QT license, not the GPL.
They want people even thinking about going commercial to buy a
commercial license from the beginning. I am sure that in their
judgment, this gains more that it loses. And I would not be surprised
if they are right.

 

[azrael]

It would be rally great if wingIDE would have integrated controls for
wxPython.This would be really great.

 

[David Boddie]

So are the references to 'Qt Open Source License' on the website
misleading?

It depends on whether you assume that there's a separate license by that
name. In practice, it's a placeholder for the licenses it's available under:

"The Open Source Edition is freely available for the development of Open
Source software governed by the GNU General Public License versions 2 and 3
(?GPL?). The Qt Commercial Editions must be used for proprietary,
commercial development."
-- http://trolltech.com/products/appdev/licensing

However, quickly skimming that page, I can see how you could reach the
following conclusion:

It seems to me that the claims on the website are very
carefully worded to say that you have to develop code under the GPL (or
other open source license), not that Qt itself is released under the
GPL, and given the additional conditions they impose I would have said
at best it is GPL + lots of other restrictions.

No, the Qt Open Source Edition is GPL version 2 or version 3 (your choice)
with exceptions (additional permissions) that let you link things to it that
you couldn't if it was pure GPL. It it was GPL + restrictions, it wouldn't
be GPL compatible (you can't add restrictions to the GPL, as I understand
it).

More information can be found here:

http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/gpl.html

David

 

[Phil Thompson]

So are the references to 'Qt Open Source License' on the website
misleading? It seems to me that the claims on the website are very
carefully worded to say that you have to develop code under the GPL (or
other open source license), not that Qt itself is released under the
GPL, and given the additional conditions they impose I would have said
at best it is GPL + lots of other restrictions.

Feel free to disagree, I am not an intellectual property lowyer.

Download the source, read the text of the license, it's the GPL.

Phil

 

[Mike Driscoll]

whoever I ask, everyone tells me when it come to python and GUI-s and
that there is the best way to use WX. I am browsing for the 10th time
during the last year and I can still not bealive that there is not one
project to make gui-building easy as maybe in VB for python. Each I
tried was a pain in the ass when it comes to usability. The only
descent one I've seen was Boa constructor, but also they have stoped
in developing. Please tell me that there is at least something
descent.
I am freaking out that I need 5 times more time to make a GUI in
python than in VB.

I normally don't recommend this, but you can use Visual Studio to
create your GUI and then use IronPython to run it. Then you'll have
the "best" of both worlds.

I don't use IronPython that much, but I do like that. For the most
part though, I just use wxPython.

Mike

 

[Colin J. Williams]

I normally don't recommend this, but you can use Visual Studio to
create your GUI and then use IronPython to run it. Then you'll have
the "best" of both worlds.

Yes, but you would probably need the
version of Visual Studio (2003,
I believe) which is used for Python.

Is there any chance that Python could
use the freely available of
Visual Studio?