Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite
blog.qt.io
Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite
1–10 of 64 posts
Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite
#2As far as I know, almost all independent (meaning manufacturer proprietary, so disregarding Android Auto here) user-facing in-car systems are using either HTML5 or Qt. In that light it sounds like a smart move to make it even easier to pick their offering.
Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite
#3So 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 the art for a html5 based embedded interface?
Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite
#4So 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…
From my understanding of the licensing, that doesn't sound right. The internal product will be subject to the LGPL, but eve if that's a problem you only need to make sure you don't distribute it to anyone so that no one can ask you to oblige to the license.
Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite
#5So 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…
From my understanding of the licensing, that doesn't sound right. The internal product will be subject to the LGPL, but eve if that's a problem you only need to make sure you don't distribute it to anyone so that no one can ask you to oblige to the license.
No, that's always been a quirk of the Qt licensing.
If you intend to launch a closed-source* product at some future date and pay the per-unit licensing fees, the developer needs a seat license from day one.
(* closed-source or code that statically links in the Qt libraries)
Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite
#6So 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…
From my understanding of the licensing, that doesn't sound right. The internal product will be subject to the LGPL, but eve if that's a problem you only need to make sure you don't distribute it to anyone so that no one can ask you to oblige to the license.
Yea, that was my understanding of it also. I think they are trying to make the argument that once the your code is written under LGPL, its LGPL forever and can't have another license.
Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite
#7So 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…
Electron might not be "fast" enough for many serious GUI applications? That been said, I also am struggling with finding a non-Java cross-platform GUI dev platform. The selection pool boils down to between QT and Electron indeed these days.
Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my understanding of the licensing, that doesn't sound right. The internal product will be subject to the LGPL, but eve if that's a problem you only need to make sure you don't distribute it to anyone so that no one can ask you to oblige to the license.
Yea, that was my understanding of it also. I think they are trying to make the argument that once the your code is written under LGPL, its LGPL forever and can't have another license.
Your code is never under the LGPL though; you are free to license your code as you please.
It's the binary you release that being linked to a LGPL library is subject to its conditions.
Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my understanding of the licensing, that doesn't sound right. The internal product will be subject to the LGPL, but eve if that's a problem you only need to make sure you don't distribute it to anyone so that no one can ask you to oblige to the license.
No, that's always been a quirk of the Qt licensing. If you intend to launch a closed-source* product at some future date and pay the per-unit licensing fees, the developer needs a seat license from day one. (* closed-source or code that statically links in the Qt libraries)
That sounds like FUD* - Qt's LGPL is LGPL without modifications, so it does not have any quirk. Is it written in the commercial license that you cannot buy it if you have used the LGPL license?
* Not accusing you of course; I'm totally convinced that it can come from a misguided sales rep trying to close a deal as early as possible.
Re: Announcing the Qt Automotive Suite
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's always been a quirk of the Qt licensing. If you intend to launch a closed-source* product at some future date and pay the per-unit licensing fees, the developer needs a seat license from day one. (* closed-source or code that statically links in the Qt libraries)
That sounds like FUD* - Qt's LGPL is LGPL without modifications, so it does not have any quirk. Is it written in the commercial license that you cannot buy it if you have used the LGPL license? * Not accusing you of course; I'm totally convinced that it can come from a misguided sales rep trying to close a deal as early as possible.
The LGPL thing is not really the issue here. It's how Trolltech/Nokia/Digia/QtCo approached the payment of a commercial license.
It's always been explained to me by the sales people that "you cannot switch licensing models mid-stream". So if you're planning to go commercial, you start commercial.
It's not really about closing the deal as much as making sure the Trolltech developers were paid during the time you needed their support.