3 ms·
You made a low-effort comment that GPLv3 is the only no-cost licensing option for Qt. But that's not a "fact"; it's still available under LGPL, which makes you
by carussell 11y ago
You made a low-effort comment that GPLv3 is the only no-cost licensing option for Qt. But that's not a "fact"; it's still available under LGPL, which makes your comment untrue. That's why you got downvoted.
- pjmlp 11y agoNot for the newer versions, if I read correctly their blog. Also many legal departments won't allow it.
- carussell 11y ago> if I read correctly their blog It looks like you didn't. Qt is still available under LGPL. Both the blog post itself and the top comment here (which is also the thread you responded to) spell that out.
- pjmlp 11y ago"In line with this, the new contract with KDE now removes LGPLv2.1 as a required license for the open source version. Instead, it now requires LGPLv3" Based on my experience, from the legal department point of view, LGPL v2.1 != v3. A new approval process must be started.
- carussell 11y agoIf that's the only point you intended to make, then fine, say that. But you didn't. What you said was that anyone looking for a no-cost option for Qt now has to use GPLv3, or they can pay for a commercial license (and then complain about getting downvoted). These are not the same thing. The former is something to have a discussion about. The latter is verifiably untrue, and has massively wasted time for someone not wanting to see the lie get repeated or go uncorrected.