6 ms·

With LGPLv3, the Qt company is sending a clear signal it's time to pay if you want to use Qt in a device (the industry being clearly anti-(L)GPLv3). It could be

by Aissen 10y ago

With LGPLv3, the Qt company is sending a clear signal it's time to pay if you want to use Qt in a device (the industry being clearly anti-(L)GPLv3). It could be the chance for GTK, if they weren't also busy digging their own grave :-/ http://lwn.net/Articles/691131 http://lwn.net/Articles/691131

rsp1984 10y ago
Why is the industry anti-LGPLv3? In Layman's terms what are the key differences between LGPL v2.1 and v3?
- maheart 10y ago
  The (L)GPL3 disallows Tivoization[1]. Unfortunately, device manufacturers (including Apple) have avoided upgrading to the latest version of certain software (e.g. Bash, Samba, GCC) to avoid the (L)GPL3. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - bertit 10y ago
    AFAIK, the reason Apple avoid (L)GPL3 is because of the patents clauses. Not because of the Tivoization
  - zanny 10y ago
    So the LGPL is fulfilling its promise and doing its job by protecting its users from tonka toy hardware they can't control.
    - Matthias247 10y ago
      I don't see any help in protecting auser, if he can see some parts of code and (in case of [L]GPL3 exchange them) but not everything. The "malicous" parts (whatever that means in that context) can still be in the proprietary software parts.
joshvm 10y ago
If you're fine with dynamic linking, then commercial development is still very much possible (though you lose Qt Charts). The only major pain is that you have to supply a copy of the Qt Source if requested - the pain being that a link to the official repo is not enough, you have to be in control of the code. However, I would imagine if you gave someone the option of (a) downloading from the website or (b) paying postage and handling for a disc with the same thing, that would satisfy the license.
- kbenson 10y ago
  Seems like there should be a company willing to handle that for you. Take $X for for specific hosting and delivery costs up to Y for particular open source projects you've listed, for Z years.
  - oconnore 10y ago
    Have you heard of this sweet version control provider called Github? I hear they might provide a solution for this sort of thing, for free.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      That doesn't satisfy the legal requirements. First, that repo may go away at some point, and you need it guaranteed, and second, they aren't doing to mail you a physical copy for cost, which is also a stipulation of some of these licenses.
- distances 10y ago
  > you have to supply a copy of the Qt Source if requested - the pain being that a link to the official repo is not enough I don't think this this is true. My googling is now failing me as I just get results about linking of libraries, but I remember reading it's enough to point to the source if it's unmodified in your application.
  - joshvm 10y ago
_pmf_ 10y ago
> It could be the chance for GTK, if they weren't also busy digging their own grave They have a fleet of excavators lined up. Especially for non-X systems, GTK should be considered dead. I kind of liked GTK's C-only approach with simple call backs.
Nokinside 10y ago
What's wrong with paying for an extremely high quality GUI toolkit? Btw. It's very easy to comply LGPLv3 in proprietary project if you want. 1) If you don't modify the Qt library and link dynamically there is no problem whatsoever. 2) If you modify the Qt library or link statically, it's enough to provide modified version of the Qt library and combined object files that make it possible to relink the application to different version. Industry loves Qt. You either pay a little or spend little extra effort.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  Many developers feel entitled to get their tools for free, but expect to be able to charge for their stuff, it seems. This is what made RoboVM go comercial AFAIK, as they could hardly make a living from contributions.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    That's why we can't have nice things...
  - lallysingh 10y ago
    You'd think their managers would see the benefits of paying a fixed cost instead of doing their own hacking/development.
  - zerr 10y ago
    Actually, it is "pay upfront" that scares many, I believe. Developers are experimenters - love to play and test many things and in case of commercial success, I think it will be a no-brainier to pay. So I think models such as "pay after your first 10K (or 100K) revenue" work.
    - Avshalom 10y ago
      Well then Qt is great because it's free, you can ship your app using Qt with out paying a nickel and it keeps being free no matter what your revenue. It only costs money if you want to ship your app with different legal terms.
baldfat 10y ago
Apache 2.0 is not compatible with LGPLv2.1 is the reason back in 2014 and QT has continued to grow during this time. http://blog.qt.io/blog/2014/08/20/adding-lgpl-v3-to-qt/ http://blog.qt.io/blog/2014/08/20/adding-lgpl-v3-to-qt/ > We also consider locked-down consumer devices using the LGPL’ed version of Qt to be harmful for the Qt ecosystem. ... Because of this, we are now adding LGPL v3 as a licensing option to Qt 5.4 in addition to LGPL v2.1. All modules that are part of Qt 5.3 are currently released under LGPL v2.1, GPL v3 and the commercial license. Starting with Qt 5.4, they will be released under LGPL v2.1, LGPL v3 and the commercial license. ... In Qt 5.4, the new Qt WebEngine module will be released under LGPL v3 in the open source version and under a LGPLv2.1/commercial combination for Qt Enterprise customers. ... Adding LGPLv3 will also allow us to release a few other add-ons that Digia before intended to make available solely under the enterprise license. ... The first module, called Qt Canvas3D, will give us full WebGL support inside Qt Quick. ... The second module is a lightweight WebView module ... There is a final add-on that will get released under LGPL v3. This module will give native look and feel to the Qt Quick Controls on Android. This module can’t be released under LGPL v2.1, as it has to use code that is licensed under Apache 2.0, a license that is incompatible with LGPL v2.1, but compatible with LGPL v3.

by Aissen 10y ago

rsp1984 10y ago

Why is the industry anti-LGPLv3? In Layman's terms what are the key differences between LGPL v2.1 and v3?

maheart 10y ago
The (L)GPL3 disallows Tivoization[1]. Unfortunately, device manufacturers (including Apple) have avoided upgrading to the latest version of certain software (e.g. Bash, Samba, GCC) to avoid the (L)GPL3. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- bertit 10y ago
  AFAIK, the reason Apple avoid (L)GPL3 is because of the patents clauses. Not because of the Tivoization
- zanny 10y ago
  So the LGPL is fulfilling its promise and doing its job by protecting its users from tonka toy hardware they can't control.
  - Matthias247 10y ago
    I don't see any help in protecting auser, if he can see some parts of code and (in case of [L]GPL3 exchange them) but not everything. The "malicous" parts (whatever that means in that context) can still be in the proprietary software parts.

joshvm 10y ago

If you're fine with dynamic linking, then commercial development is still very much possible (though you lose Qt Charts). The only major pain is that you have to supply a copy of the Qt Source if requested - the pain being that a link to the official repo is not enough, you have to be in control of the code. However, I would imagine if you gave someone the option of (a) downloading from the website or (b) paying postage and handling for a disc with the same thing, that would satisfy the license.

kbenson 10y ago
Seems like there should be a company willing to handle that for you. Take $X for for specific hosting and delivery costs up to Y for particular open source projects you've listed, for Z years.
- oconnore 10y ago
  Have you heard of this sweet version control provider called Github? I hear they might provide a solution for this sort of thing, for free.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    That doesn't satisfy the legal requirements. First, that repo may go away at some point, and you need it guaranteed, and second, they aren't doing to mail you a physical copy for cost, which is also a stipulation of some of these licenses.
distances 10y ago
> you have to supply a copy of the Qt Source if requested - the pain being that a link to the official repo is not enough I don't think this this is true. My googling is now failing me as I just get results about linking of libraries, but I remember reading it's enough to point to the source if it's unmodified in your application.
- joshvm 10y ago

_pmf_ 10y ago

> It could be the chance for GTK, if they weren't also busy digging their own grave They have a fleet of excavators lined up. Especially for non-X systems, GTK should be considered dead. I kind of liked GTK's C-only approach with simple call backs.

Nokinside 10y ago

What's wrong with paying for an extremely high quality GUI toolkit? Btw. It's very easy to comply LGPLv3 in proprietary project if you want. 1) If you don't modify the Qt library and link dynamically there is no problem whatsoever. 2) If you modify the Qt library or link statically, it's enough to provide modified version of the Qt library and combined object files that make it possible to relink the application to different version. Industry loves Qt. You either pay a little or spend little extra effort.

pjmlp 10y ago
Many developers feel entitled to get their tools for free, but expect to be able to charge for their stuff, it seems. This is what made RoboVM go comercial AFAIK, as they could hardly make a living from contributions.
- coldtea 10y ago
  That's why we can't have nice things...
- lallysingh 10y ago
  You'd think their managers would see the benefits of paying a fixed cost instead of doing their own hacking/development.
- zerr 10y ago
  Actually, it is "pay upfront" that scares many, I believe. Developers are experimenters - love to play and test many things and in case of commercial success, I think it will be a no-brainier to pay. So I think models such as "pay after your first 10K (or 100K) revenue" work.
  - Avshalom 10y ago
    Well then Qt is great because it's free, you can ship your app using Qt with out paying a nickel and it keeps being free no matter what your revenue. It only costs money if you want to ship your app with different legal terms.

baldfat 10y ago

Apache 2.0 is not compatible with LGPLv2.1 is the reason back in 2014 and QT has continued to grow during this time. http://blog.qt.io/blog/2014/08/20/adding-lgpl-v3-to-qt/ http://blog.qt.io/blog/2014/08/20/adding-lgpl-v3-to-qt/ > We also consider locked-down consumer devices using the LGPL’ed version of Qt to be harmful for the Qt ecosystem. ... Because of this, we are now adding LGPL v3 as a licensing option to Qt 5.4 in addition to LGPL v2.1. All modules that are part of Qt 5.3 are currently released under LGPL v2.1, GPL v3 and the commercial license. Starting with Qt 5.4, they will be released under LGPL v2.1, LGPL v3 and the commercial license. ... In Qt 5.4, the new Qt WebEngine module will be released under LGPL v3 in the open source version and under a LGPLv2.1/commercial combination for Qt Enterprise customers. ... Adding LGPLv3 will also allow us to release a few other add-ons that Digia before intended to make available solely under the enterprise license. ... The first module, called Qt Canvas3D, will give us full WebGL support inside Qt Quick. ... The second module is a lightweight WebView module ... There is a final add-on that will get released under LGPL v3. This module will give native look and feel to the Qt Quick Controls on Android. This module can’t be released under LGPL v2.1, as it has to use code that is licensed under Apache 2.0, a license that is incompatible with LGPL v2.1, but compatible with LGPL v3.