Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Qt and Open Source

qt.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 138 posts

Re: Qt and Open Source

#11

Post by davidhyde »

A lot of developers are experimenting with languages and libraries outside their normal work requirements given the current uncertainties of the future. If you are considering learning QT and come across this bad PR you will most likely avoid the technology altogether. I was looking for a popular GUI framework to build front ends for my rust apps all the controversy around QT made me double my efforts to find a native alternative. I’m still experimenting but I know for sure that I won’t be using QT now.

Same thing happened with Oracle and Java, they lost a lot of potential new developers with their hardline approach to open source.

Re: Qt and Open Source

#12

Post by kovac »

dmytroi wrote: post #6

While the core product is LGPLv3+Commercial, most of their extensions are GPLv3+Commercial which makes them not suitable for a lot of apps. Hence I find it's a bit confusing to say "to be committed to open source" where in practice the only way to use their extension is either to release your apps code (given you distribute the app) or pay for commercial license. IMHO "to be committed to free software" would represen…

Considering the quality and capabilities of Qt, I really think they should just sell commercial licences. Considering the fact that the engineers at Qt need to pay to eat and pay their bills just like me, I find it absurd to expect something like this for free. In that sense, I think the current situation is very gracious.

Re: Qt and Open Source

#13

Post by oefrha »

Rochus wrote: post #5
leoedin wrote: post #2

Does anyone have context for what these discussions are? That's a pretty terse message for those of us not in the loop... Edit: This article gives a bit more context. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Qt-Open-...

Here is a good background article: https://www.embeddeduse.com/2019/12/21/safe-guarding-the-lgp... And here the email to which Qt Comany reacts: https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/2020q2/006098.h... LGPL has long been a thorn in the side of Qt Company management. Nokia had bought Qt for $150 million, developed and popularized the platform, and then released everything under LGPL. Digia/The Company then boug…

I read the linked email and now I'm even more confused about TFA.

Linked email from KDE:

> But last week, the company suddenly informed both the KDE e.V. board and the KDE Free QT Foundation that the economic outlook caused by the Corona virus puts more pressure on them to increase short-term revenue. As a result, they are thinking about restricting ALL Qt releases to paid license holders for the first 12 months. They are aware that this would mean the end of contributions via Open Governance in practice.

TFA (the entirety):

> There have been discussions on various internet forums about the future of Qt open source in the last two days. The contents do not reflect the views or plans of The Qt Company.

> The Qt Company is proud to be committed to its customers, open source, and the Qt governance model.

So, are they claiming that they never planned to "restrict ALL Qt releases to paid license holders for the first 12 months", or are they saying this plan still counts as "committed to open source"?

Re: Qt and Open Source

#14

Post by AsyncAwait »

oefrha wrote: post #13
Rochus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a good background article: https://www.embeddeduse.com/2019/12/21/safe-guarding-the-lgp... And here the email to which Qt Comany reacts: https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/2020q2/006098.h... LGPL has long been a thorn in the side of Qt Company management. Nokia had bought Qt for $150 million, developed and popularized the platform, and then released everything under LGPL. Digia/The Company then boug…

I read the linked email and now I'm even more confused about TFA. Linked email from KDE: > But last week, the company suddenly informed both the KDE e.V. board and the KDE Free QT Foundation that the economic outlook caused by the Corona virus puts more pressure on them to increase short-term revenue. As a result, they are thinking about restricting ALL Qt releases to paid license holders for the first 12 months. The…

They're not saying anything definitive. It's just a move to try and avoid bad PR.

Re: Qt and Open Source

#15

Post by zokier »

lentil_soup wrote: post #3

I really like Qt for desktop development, use it everyday, but this post makes me feel uneasy. What "discussions on various internet forums" do they mean? there's been plenty. And, which ones "do not reflect the views or plans of The Qt Company"? Why such a rushed defensive blog post?

It's direct response to https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/2020q2/006098.h...

In particular

> Unfortunately, The Qt Company is currently considering to stop this healthy cooperation

Re: Qt and Open Source

#16

Post by anoncake »

dmytroi wrote: post #6

While the core product is LGPLv3+Commercial, most of their extensions are GPLv3+Commercial which makes them not suitable for a lot of apps. Hence I find it's a bit confusing to say "to be committed to open source" where in practice the only way to use their extension is either to release your apps code (given you distribute the app) or pay for commercial license. IMHO "to be committed to free software" would represen…

How so? Promoting Open Source is the very point of the GPL.

Re: Qt and Open Source

#17

Post by MaxBarraclough »

oefrha wrote: post #13
Rochus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a good background article: https://www.embeddeduse.com/2019/12/21/safe-guarding-the-lgp... And here the email to which Qt Comany reacts: https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/2020q2/006098.h... LGPL has long been a thorn in the side of Qt Company management. Nokia had bought Qt for $150 million, developed and popularized the platform, and then released everything under LGPL. Digia/The Company then boug…

I read the linked email and now I'm even more confused about TFA. Linked email from KDE: > But last week, the company suddenly informed both the KDE e.V. board and the KDE Free QT Foundation that the economic outlook caused by the Corona virus puts more pressure on them to increase short-term revenue. As a result, they are thinking about restricting ALL Qt releases to paid license holders for the first 12 months. The…

Would it even increase their short-term revenue? Users who use the FOSS licence will just wait for the next release, won't they? Unless it's urgent that they use the latest Qt, why would they pay up?

Re: Qt and Open Source

#18

Post by eqtn »

lentil_soup wrote: post #3

I really like Qt for desktop development, use it everyday, but this post makes me feel uneasy. What "discussions on various internet forums" do they mean? there's been plenty. And, which ones "do not reflect the views or plans of The Qt Company"? Why such a rushed defensive blog post?

"discussions on various internet forums" here probably means the KDE forums/mailing list. From the mailing list "During the past two years, there have been negotiations between The Qt Company and the KDE Free Qt Foundation for updating the contract.". More info: https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/2020q2/006098.h...

There are talks in the mailing list about forking QT but KDE doesn't seems to want that currently due to lack of developers for maintaining a fork

Re: Qt and Open Source

#19

Post by oefrha »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #17
oefrha wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the linked email and now I'm even more confused about TFA. Linked email from KDE: > But last week, the company suddenly informed both the KDE e.V. board and the KDE Free QT Foundation that the economic outlook caused by the Corona virus puts more pressure on them to increase short-term revenue. As a result, they are thinking about restricting ALL Qt releases to paid license holders for the first 12 months. The…

Would it even increase their short-term revenue? Users who use the FOSS licence will just wait for the next release, won't they? Unless it's urgent that they use the latest Qt, why would they pay up?

Beats me, I'm certainly not dying to upgrade to Qt6. Now, it will be a nuisance if they withhold security patches for a year, though, so maybe that's what they're counting on? Holding security patches ransom?

Re: Qt and Open Source

#20

Post by Nokinside »

dmytroi wrote: post #6

While the core product is LGPLv3+Commercial, most of their extensions are GPLv3+Commercial which makes them not suitable for a lot of apps. Hence I find it's a bit confusing to say "to be committed to open source" where in practice the only way to use their extension is either to release your apps code (given you distribute the app) or pay for commercial license. IMHO "to be committed to free software" would represen…

> GPLv3+Commercial which makes them not suitable for a lot of apps.

In other words, the license is not suitable for users who are not committed to open source themselves but are not willing to pay either.

Dual licensing with GPL is IMHO the best and often only viable method from the business point of view for small and medium sized companies who sell product and not just service.

QT Company has large customers that are much bigger than it is. Many of them in software business. Turning into yet another software as a service producer for Autodesk or car manufacturers is not in their interests.

Post reply on HN