[ANN] Qt Ribbon QtitanRibbon Screenshots Available!

[AlexLeo]

Developer Machines team is glad to announce that the company decided to release an implementation of Microsoft Ribbon for Qt - QtitanRibbon. QtitanRibbon is a platform-independent component that works in Windows, Linux and will shortly work in Mac OS. Apart from a set of widgets, QtitanRibbon comes with a collection of styles from QStyle that will add the support of Microsoft Office themes to your Qt applications. Blue, Aqua, Black and Silver Office theme variations are available. Click this link to see some screenshots of this component.
http://www.devmachines.com/products/qtitanribbon.html

[wysota]

What is the relation of this component to the licence/patent Microsoft has on the ribbon control?

[AlexLeo]

Developer Machines does not give rights for use Microsoft Ribbon in Qt applications. We are provide component only.
However, you can accept it (Microsoft Office Fluent Licence) yourself by clicking this link.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/aa973809.aspx
It's free and does not take much time.

[ComaWhite]

I thought the Microsoft patent is BS due to there being prior art for it you can read about it on Wikipedia and see images of prior art.

But too bad it costs

[AlexLeo]

Can you give specific references? Visual Studio has a ribbon realization for MFC that Miscrosoft does not prohibit to use in your applications without any payments. One condition, your application should not be a competition of MS products (like Office) and you must accept the license agreement is available at the link above.

[ComaWhite]

Can you give specific references? Visual Studio has a ribbon realization for MFC that Miscrosoft does not prohibit to use in your applications without any payments. One condition, your application should not be a competition of MS products (like Office) and you must accept the license agreement is available at the link above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbon_(computing)

Patent "Land grab"
Mike Gunderloy, a former Microsoft contractor, left the company and ceased using its software partially over his disagreement with the company's "sweeping land grab" including its attempt to patent the Ribbon interface. He refused to "contribut[e] to the eventual death of programming."[18] He states: "Microsoft itself represents a grave threat to the future of software development through its increasing inclination to stifle competition through legal shenanigans."[19][20]
Proponents of free software, such as KDE developer Jarosław Staniek,[21] have expressed beliefs that the patent cannot be acquired due to the ambiguity of prior art.[21] As no patent has been acquired yet, they assert that anyone who has not signed the license can legally implement the concept in their applications without having to conform to Microsoft's requirements.[22] It has also been stated that Microsoft will not give their approval to products competing directly with Microsoft's.[23] If the design guidelines contain legal loopholes that give Microsoft a basis for future lawsuits against products exploiting this concept, those disenfranchised would not be able to inform others due to the non-disclosure agreement.[24]
Staniek notes that the ribbon concept has historically appeared extensively as "tabbed toolbars" in applications such as Macromedia HomeSite, Dreamweaver and Borland Delphi.[21] Early ribbon UIs were developed by Lotus for their product eSuite. Screen shots are still available in an IBM redbook about eSuite (page 109ff).[25]
Another popular application that has used the "tabbed toolbar" concept is Autodesk Maya.

[wysota]

"They" meaning Jarek Staniek? Wikipedia is hardly a reliable data source. I'm against software patents myself so this all sounds stupid to me.

[AlexLeo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbon_(computing)
As no patent has been acquired yet, they assert that anyone who has not signed the license can legally implement the
concept in their applications without having to conform to Microsoft's requirements

I agree with this statement. However, to sign the license and getting permission from the MS can get almost anyone and is actually a ritual character.
let me also quote a phrase from the Microsoft site:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/aa973809.aspx
All of the options in this category require acceptance of the Office UI License terms on this site.
The additional benefits of this category include the ability to implement across more platforms,
the ability to use elements of the Office 2010 UI that are not incorporated in the other implementations,
and the ability to use a third-party component that may have other benefits to you as a developer.

[wysota]

I bet there is a clause somewhere that they can revoke the "licence" they give you. Between the lines it can be read as "if you want to use he 'Office UI', you need to have a poisson pill ready should you ever do something we won't like". Imagine such UI components going in any of front line 3rd party applications such as Photoshop, AutoCAD or whatever. "Oh, we the Microsoft are releasing a new crappy graphics application and by pure coincidence at the same time we regret to inform that you have to stop selling Photoshop becuse we have just decided you are in violation with our Office UI agreement".

[AlexLeo]

I do not think that such an approach is correct from a legal point of view. With hindsight, the action has no effect. To do so, it should be Office UI concept version 2.

[wysota]

I do not think that such an approach is correct from a legal point of view.

You mean revoking a licence? If there is some clause like that in the agreement then I don't know what could be illegal in making use of it. That's a standard sentence that you have to accept (and obey) the licence to be able to use the product. If the licencer claims (and proves) the licencee didn't/doesn't obey it, use of the product has to be stopped.

[AlexLeo]

I guess i can imagine such situation in theory. But sense tells me that this is a very exotic case. I haven't heard about such cases earlier, if i understand what you mean correctly.

[wysota]

I guess i can imagine such situation in theory. But sense tells me that this is a very exotic case. I haven't heard about such cases earlier, if i understand what you mean correctly.

I haven't heard any case where you had to accept a licence of company A to be able to use a product of company B. And I can't think of any practical reason Microsoft requires that.

[ComaWhite]

IMHO I would use Ribbon even if they didn't like it. Tough shit if my app competes with you. That's the way developers do, hardwares, etc do. Why you think we have 1000's of brand type VCR's, DVD players, etc. But I doubt Microsoft could really say anything due to prior art.