I really want to use Qt for a project but between the absurd commercial cost and them playing games with licensing i'm going with either wxWidgets or Lazarus.
Quality wise Qt is way ahead of wxWidgets.
Qt and Open Source
81–90 of 138 posts
Re: Qt and Open Source
#82Re: Qt and Open Source
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software development business is among the least affected by Corona. But Corona is a good opportunity for many managers to use it to justify previous misconduct.
A lot of tech companies have clients who are significantly affected by Corona
And all of them have cancelled their license contracts in the last days or announced that they will not buy any more licenses after Corona?
Re: Qt and Open Source
#84I really want to use Qt for a project but between the absurd commercial cost and them playing games with licensing i'm going with either wxWidgets or Lazarus.
You can download and use Qt desktop widgets for free in your commercial application.
Re: Qt and Open Source
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
> IMHO, if they lose this ... If The Qt Company discontinued the FOSS version of Qt, the Qt framework would become available under the BSD license, and there would no longer be a contributor licence agreement allowing a company to sell the work of another company. > in addition to all the third-party contributions, which are a small, but not insignificant portion of the Qt code. In the last years more than 50% were o…
If The Qt Company discontinued the FOSS version of Qt, the Qt framework would become available under the BSD license, and there would no longer be a contributor licence agreement allowing a company to sell the work of another company. But the rumors were that the Qt Company planned to do the minimum necessary to satisfy KDE Free Qt Foundation agreement, namely to release the source 12 months after release of the prop…
I'm sure you'll have a couple of shysters in tow trying to turn it this way. But at the end of the day (i.e. in court) only the effective will of the parties counts, no matter what (possibly wrong) wording was used in the contract. Unfortunately, KDE is not expected to go to court. The Company will take advantage of this.
Re: Qt and Open Source
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't seem that things being "much too complicated" is the issue when maintaining separate proprietary and open source forks is on the table. Although it's unclear if it actually is or not. OpenCV (and many other open source frameworks) never had a CLA so this wouldn't be an issue for that. In my opinion there is nothing inherently wrong with dual-licensing but it's expensive and many companies do not have the r…
> In my opinion there is nothing inherently wrong with dual-licensing It significantly hampers cooperation. No company in its right mind would make a large investment for free in the development of software sold by another company. Without this unspeakable dual license, a balance is possible, i.e. the companies can invest and use without taking inadequat advantage of each other.
It doesn't have to be "for free". There is a simple solution I already mentioned, which is for the maintaining company to pay in exchange for getting the CLA signed. Serious long-term contributors should have this negotiation before making any large investment. Businesses can ask for royalties up to a cap, individual contributors are likely to get a salaried offer made up-front.
In the event of total failure of Qt's business model and reversion to a BSD license it is also very likely that there will not be much left of a market for big enterprise services around this type of product, so be careful with that double-edged sword. You might just end up with more fragmentation and internal proprietary forks to contend with. On the other hand, independent consulting will always remain an option as it is now.
Re: Qt and Open Source
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, a bit more than last year. One should also analyze what parts were commited. There is a significant difference in the commits by company to the core framework and the new 3D tools and other parts that The Company wants to make money with.
The stats for qtbase are pretty similar. I suppose I might as well link the full page for folks: https://macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/
Thanks. It was quite different when I looked at it a year ago. Maybe the new activity is because of Qt 6.
Re: Qt and Open Source
#88I think Qt needs to rethink their licensing model.
Currently you either pay them a LOT of money for everything they offer, or you don't pay them anything and just use the LGPL version (when that's possible).
It seems their current strategy is to milk the users that can't use the LGPL users as much as possible, Additionally they try to convince as many people as possible that the LGPL version won't work for them, by having very confusing licensing terms on their website.
My company currently uses the LGPL version of Qt, and would gladly pay for the commercial one. In the Trolltech and Nokia days they actually did pay for it, but the prices are no longer affordable us. So we are stuck with the LGPL version for now.
We don't need a trillion supported platforms and tons of features. We have a Desktop App that runs on Windows (and in the future maybe Linux), and we use the old Widget stuff (currently no QML). We would gladly pay for the features we need, but not the ridicolous amound they are charging now.
Re: Qt and Open Source
#89I think Qt needs to rethink their licensing model. Currently you either pay them a LOT of money for everything they offer, or you don't pay them anything and just use the LGPL version (when that's possible). It seems their current strategy is to milk the users that can't use the LGPL users as much as possible, Additionally they try to convince as many people as possible that the LGPL version won't work for them, by h…
What’s wrong with the LGPL? If you dynamically link them, then you don’t need to open source your product. It’s only a problem if you want to statically link.
Re: Qt and Open Source
#90I think Qt needs to rethink their licensing model. Currently you either pay them a LOT of money for everything they offer, or you don't pay them anything and just use the LGPL version (when that's possible). It seems their current strategy is to milk the users that can't use the LGPL users as much as possible, Additionally they try to convince as many people as possible that the LGPL version won't work for them, by h…
What’s wrong with the LGPL? If you dynamically link them, then you don’t need to open source your product. It’s only a problem if you want to statically link.
Nothing is wrong with the LPGL version for us. Static linking would be nice sometimes, but really necessary.
My point is that my company would be willing to pay for Qt (and it did pay in the past), but not that much. In the current situation they don't get any money from us at all.