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

Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

blog.qt.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#51

Post by cplease »

karmicthreat wrote: post #3

So I'm remaking a product and was approaching qt about the commercial version. The rep was very insistent that I can not develop an internal prototype using the open source license and then move to the commercial license. So that makes qt pretty unattractive to me since I have to pony up cash and hope it's good. What I would like is something like electron that can run on a frame buffer. What's the current state of t…

I love it when commercial software developers complain about having to pay for software.

How dare Qt demand that others pay them before developing a commercial product using their code?

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#52

Post by cplease »

mjevans wrote: post #45
distances wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Qt-as-the-company has always made it very clear that you can't switch your Qt LGPL/GPL project to a commercial one if you didn't start with the commercial Qt license from the beginning. You're right, it does sound a bit nasty. No, I haven't read the license myself. It's been brought up multiple times on official Qt blog comments and mailing lists, though. Edit: checked it now, and it's clearly written at https://www.…

It would be nice if they had some form of migration publicly stated. For example something like this: If your project decides to go commercial the initial license term will include a cost of conversion based on the quantity of code already written. It would be interesting if they expressed that rate as something like: A gz -1 compressed tarball of the affected source code will be created, the size (in bytes) multipli…

I imagine they have sales guys. If you have a meaningful amount of money to spend they will talk to you. If not, don't use their LGPL code in a proprietary product.

Qt is not an end-user, boxed product. This may shock you, but B2B software doesn't always have a public, standard price list.

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#53

Post by mjevans »

cplease wrote: post #52
mjevans wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be nice if they had some form of migration publicly stated. For example something like this: If your project decides to go commercial the initial license term will include a cost of conversion based on the quantity of code already written. It would be interesting if they expressed that rate as something like: A gz -1 compressed tarball of the affected source code will be created, the size (in bytes) multipli…

I imagine they have sales guys. If you have a meaningful amount of money to spend they will talk to you. If not, don't use their LGPL code in a proprietary product. Qt is not an end-user, boxed product. This may shock you, but B2B software doesn't always have a public, standard price list.

Shock, no; sadden and drive me to other ventures yes.

My rule of thumb for pricing is that if someplace /makes you ask/ they aren't going to sell at a price you'd find worthwhile.

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#54

Post by cplease »

mjevans wrote: post #53
cplease wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine they have sales guys. If you have a meaningful amount of money to spend they will talk to you. If not, don't use their LGPL code in a proprietary product. Qt is not an end-user, boxed product. This may shock you, but B2B software doesn't always have a public, standard price list.

Shock, no; sadden and drive me to other ventures yes. My rule of thumb for pricing is that if someplace /makes you ask/ they aren't going to sell at a price you'd find worthwhile.

And their rule of thumb is that you aren't worth the sale. Bespoke software is not a bulk commodity. They have a free product. If you're going to be a cheapskate, use it.

The notion of charging by byte, as if software were content farming, shows that you are obviously not a professional.

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#55

Post by karmicthreat »

cplease wrote: post #51
karmicthreat wrote: post #3

So I'm remaking a product and was approaching qt about the commercial version. The rep was very insistent that I can not develop an internal prototype using the open source license and then move to the commercial license. So that makes qt pretty unattractive to me since I have to pony up cash and hope it's good. What I would like is something like electron that can run on a frame buffer. What's the current state of t…

I love it when commercial software developers complain about having to pay for software. How dare Qt demand that others pay them before developing a commercial product using their code?

Or maybe I just want a prototype to prove out a concept and software stack. Rather than just blindly throwing money at a problem.

I have no problem paying Qt. I'm just unwilling to do it until I know its the direction I want to go. The current Qt licensing structure adds friction to my making that decision.

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#56

Post by cplease »

karmicthreat wrote: post #55
cplease wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love it when commercial software developers complain about having to pay for software. How dare Qt demand that others pay them before developing a commercial product using their code?

Or maybe I just want a prototype to prove out a concept and software stack. Rather than just blindly throwing money at a problem. I have no problem paying Qt. I'm just unwilling to do it until I know its the direction I want to go. The current Qt licensing structure adds friction to my making that decision.

Of course it adds friction. It's supposed to add friction. They wrote the code, they're a going concern, if you're going to pay they want you to commit and pay, not "prove out the concept" for free. Qt will give you a license for prototyping, you're just not willing to pay it.

Most commercial vendors won't give you their entire product for free until your own product is half-built. Qt is different; they offer an entire free product. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#57

Post by rnovak »

cplease wrote: post #51
karmicthreat wrote: post #3

So I'm remaking a product and was approaching qt about the commercial version. The rep was very insistent that I can not develop an internal prototype using the open source license and then move to the commercial license. So that makes qt pretty unattractive to me since I have to pony up cash and hope it's good. What I would like is something like electron that can run on a frame buffer. What's the current state of t…

I love it when commercial software developers complain about having to pay for software. How dare Qt demand that others pay them before developing a commercial product using their code?

Why do many enterprise software companies offer free (or low cost) trials then?

Does the company that you work for (or yours if you're a founder) take the same "take it or leave it" attitude towards potential customers?

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#58

Post by karmicthreat »

cplease wrote: post #56
karmicthreat wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe I just want a prototype to prove out a concept and software stack. Rather than just blindly throwing money at a problem. I have no problem paying Qt. I'm just unwilling to do it until I know its the direction I want to go. The current Qt licensing structure adds friction to my making that decision.

Of course it adds friction. It's supposed to add friction. They wrote the code, they're a going concern, if you're going to pay they want you to commit and pay, not "prove out the concept" for free. Qt will give you a license for prototyping, you're just not willing to pay it. Most commercial vendors won't give you their entire product for free until your own product is half-built. Qt is different; they offer an enti…

The license for prototyping seems to be the same one for release. And Qt isn't offering me a free product, their terms are pay then develop your software. At least in my context.

In any event the only issue is the weird quirk of the Qt commercial license preventing you from switching to commercial from LGPL. Which I and apparently a few other people in the thread really didn't get at first.

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#59

Post by cplease »

rnovak wrote: post #57
cplease wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love it when commercial software developers complain about having to pay for software. How dare Qt demand that others pay them before developing a commercial product using their code?

Why do many enterprise software companies offer free (or low cost) trials then? Does the company that you work for (or yours if you're a founder) take the same "take it or leave it" attitude towards potential customers?

> Why do many enterprise software companies offer free (or low cost) trials then?

So does Qt. So much so in fact, they even offer an entire free product; evaluate it all you want. Just don't use it to build a commercial product while paying zero dollars and then come back when it's half-built and expect to dictate pricing terms after the fact.

> Does the company that you work for (or yours if you're a founder) take the same "take it or leave it" attitude towards potential customers?

I'm not going to talk about my work here. I'm writing on my anonymous behalf only. I've worked at places that were more or less liberal with evaluations and more or less tolerant of tiny accounts. I have never worked somewhere that salespeople loved customers who wasted their time asking for freebies and handouts with illusory promises of future money that never seems to materialize.

Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite

#60

Post by cplease »

karmicthreat wrote: post #58
cplease wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it adds friction. It's supposed to add friction. They wrote the code, they're a going concern, if you're going to pay they want you to commit and pay, not "prove out the concept" for free. Qt will give you a license for prototyping, you're just not willing to pay it. Most commercial vendors won't give you their entire product for free until your own product is half-built. Qt is different; they offer an enti…

The license for prototyping seems to be the same one for release. And Qt isn't offering me a free product, their terms are pay then develop your software. At least in my context. In any event the only issue is the weird quirk of the Qt commercial license preventing you from switching to commercial from LGPL. Which I and apparently a few other people in the thread really didn't get at first.

> The license for prototyping seems to be the same one for release. And Qt isn't offering me a free product, their terms are pay then develop your software. At least in my context.

Their standard Qt for Application Development license gives you a free 30 day evaluation period. Also, I don't think any of this encompasses simply examining the free product without use in product development, e.g., reading the APIs, documentation, and source code. That's a lot of freebies, that you don't necessarily get with other commercial products.

> In any event the only issue is the weird quirk of the Qt commercial license preventing you from switching to commercial from LGPL. Which I and apparently a few other people in the thread really didn't get at first.

There's no weird quirk. As they state, "If you have already started the development with an open-source version of Qt, please contact The Qt Company to resolve the issue." If you have money, they will take your money. But if you want to develop a commercial product and use Qt up front then you have to budget for it. If you can't afford it then use something else. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to develop a proprietary product with Qt.

Post reply on HN