5 ms·

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

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.
    - lallysingh 10y ago
      Yeah. Qt is far beyond reasonable, and I categorically can't understand the motivations for people who'd rather pay substantially more, with higher risk, to write their own version.
  - dman 10y ago
    Discussions in posts about commercial libraries / tools developers often have extensive discussion about pricing and free alternatives (Threads about SublimeText come to mind). I wonder if the current sad state of developer tooling (stuck in the 70s in many cases) is because of our reluctance to pay for our tools. Would love to hear what others have to say about this.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      I belong to a generation that had to pay for its tools. My first Turbo Pascal for Windows was bought after a few months of saving. Same with other tools. Even open source, I used to pay for the Walnut Creek CD-Roms. Nowadays I still buy software tools and do occasional donations. So I cannot understand how the millenials expect to get their tools for free on one side, but then complain that unless they are selling services or SaaS software no one pays them.
      - sangnoir 10y ago
        > So I cannot understand how the millenials expect to get their tools for free I'm a (senior) millennial and I'm prepared to pay for tools that are worth it. However, Free (as in freedom) software has come a long way, I won't pay for tooling that is at par or less capable than, with Free software. I think the rise of GPL/Open source - GCC, Linux and Free DBs & languages (and their ecosystems) are to blame; not millennials.
        pjmlp 10y ago
        Such tools already existed back then, they were called freeware and Public Domain, or came as gifts in magazine listings or tapes. Also some people would keep on re-installing them past the demo deadline, or crack them, just to avoid paying. But not on the scale that happens today. Linux and GCC would not be as developed as they are if it wasn't for the companies that sell hardware and are willing to pay engineer time to improve them. During GCC early days, most contributors were the ones not wanting to pay for the Solaris SDK, so its development was as fast as Hurd still is today. Regarding languages, that is why commercial tools get all the nice goodies, no one can make a living of selling improved tooling to FOSS developers. Hence why many watch a talk from Bret Viktor and are amazed of his presentations, but we already had such tools in 90's, they just had the sin of being commercial.
salicideblock 10y ago
You are forgetting that section 6 of GPLv3 still applies. That's the so-called "anti-Tivoization clause" that states that you must give the device owner "Installation information", allowing him to install and execute modified forms on this device. I understand why you would license your software under this if you want to give end users the SW freedoms developers enjoy. I also understand why many makers of safety-critical devices avoid it like the plague. Case in point, the automotive industry. Coincidentally, the Qt company has in past few years started engaging automotive companies [1][2]. The move to (L)GPLv3 can be valid and has other reasons besides pushing commercial licensing. But you can't say it doesn't have any impact on the industry. [1] https://www.qt.io/qt-news/qt-company-launches-automotive-suite-v1-0/ https://www.qt.io/qt-news/qt-company-launches-automotive-sui... [2] Spot the gauge needles and car body models in the announcement http://www.qt.io/qt5-7/ http://www.qt.io/qt5-7/
- AceJohnny2 10y ago
  This is also the reason OS X ships with ancient versions of bash, make, and other common GNU tools: those were the last versions to be available under GPLv2. (Why they ship many of the more optional ones at all instead of embracing external providers like Homebrew or Macport continues to mystify and frustrate me)
  - salicideblock 10y ago
    Is it the same reason? Doesn't OS X allow you to replace the system bash? If someone breaks their init with this replacement, Apple can always say "reinstall the OS". But if you're talking about a car that has crashed that's a different PR problem...

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.
  - lallysingh 10y ago
    Yeah. Qt is far beyond reasonable, and I categorically can't understand the motivations for people who'd rather pay substantially more, with higher risk, to write their own version.
- dman 10y ago
  Discussions in posts about commercial libraries / tools developers often have extensive discussion about pricing and free alternatives (Threads about SublimeText come to mind). I wonder if the current sad state of developer tooling (stuck in the 70s in many cases) is because of our reluctance to pay for our tools. Would love to hear what others have to say about this.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    I belong to a generation that had to pay for its tools. My first Turbo Pascal for Windows was bought after a few months of saving. Same with other tools. Even open source, I used to pay for the Walnut Creek CD-Roms. Nowadays I still buy software tools and do occasional donations. So I cannot understand how the millenials expect to get their tools for free on one side, but then complain that unless they are selling services or SaaS software no one pays them.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > So I cannot understand how the millenials expect to get their tools for free I'm a (senior) millennial and I'm prepared to pay for tools that are worth it. However, Free (as in freedom) software has come a long way, I won't pay for tooling that is at par or less capable than, with Free software. I think the rise of GPL/Open source - GCC, Linux and Free DBs & languages (and their ecosystems) are to blame; not millennials.
      - pjmlp 10y ago
        Such tools already existed back then, they were called freeware and Public Domain, or came as gifts in magazine listings or tapes. Also some people would keep on re-installing them past the demo deadline, or crack them, just to avoid paying. But not on the scale that happens today. Linux and GCC would not be as developed as they are if it wasn't for the companies that sell hardware and are willing to pay engineer time to improve them. During GCC early days, most contributors were the ones not wanting to pay for the Solaris SDK, so its development was as fast as Hurd still is today. Regarding languages, that is why commercial tools get all the nice goodies, no one can make a living of selling improved tooling to FOSS developers. Hence why many watch a talk from Bret Viktor and are amazed of his presentations, but we already had such tools in 90's, they just had the sin of being commercial.

salicideblock 10y ago

You are forgetting that section 6 of GPLv3 still applies. That's the so-called "anti-Tivoization clause" that states that you must give the device owner "Installation information", allowing him to install and execute modified forms on this device. I understand why you would license your software under this if you want to give end users the SW freedoms developers enjoy. I also understand why many makers of safety-critical devices avoid it like the plague. Case in point, the automotive industry. Coincidentally, the Qt company has in past few years started engaging automotive companies [1][2]. The move to (L)GPLv3 can be valid and has other reasons besides pushing commercial licensing. But you can't say it doesn't have any impact on the industry. [1] https://www.qt.io/qt-news/qt-company-launches-automotive-suite-v1-0/ https://www.qt.io/qt-news/qt-company-launches-automotive-sui... [2] Spot the gauge needles and car body models in the announcement http://www.qt.io/qt5-7/ http://www.qt.io/qt5-7/

AceJohnny2 10y ago
This is also the reason OS X ships with ancient versions of bash, make, and other common GNU tools: those were the last versions to be available under GPLv2. (Why they ship many of the more optional ones at all instead of embracing external providers like Homebrew or Macport continues to mystify and frustrate me)
- salicideblock 10y ago
  Is it the same reason? Doesn't OS X allow you to replace the system bash? If someone breaks their init with this replacement, Apple can always say "reinstall the OS". But if you're talking about a car that has crashed that's a different PR problem...