6 ms·

The problem with Qt I have is how incredibly expensive it is. Sure it's free if you want to build something open source, but you know some of us have to also ma

The problem with Qt I have is how incredibly expensive it is. Sure it's free if you want to build something open source, but you know some of us have to also make money to pay for being alive and it's hard to bootstrap an application if you have to pay $5,508 up front, per developer, and then again on an annual basis.

pritambaral 7y ago
You can use Qt with closed source software, under the LGPL license that you don't have to pay for. Only the binaries that have Qt code need to be open. Don't statically link Qt libs into your closed-source code and you're good.
- sroussey 7y ago
  And put that in an app store?
  - hellofunk 7y ago
    Yes, even on iOS.
    - kej 7y ago
      The LGPL requires end users to be able to view and modify the LGPL portion of the derivative work. Does iOS give end users that level of access to apps? (honest question, my outsider's impression of Apple is that they have stuff locked down more than that)
      - jcelerier 7y ago
        the problem with iOS was that you had to pay 99$ a year to upload apps to your own phone, which prevent use of GPL code since it removes your right to do stuff on your own hardware. Fortunately this restriction was lifted since Xcode 7 a few years ago and it's nowadays not a problem at all - there are plenty of GPL / LGPL apps on the app store. Just put the code and build instructions on github, what matters is that users can patch, rebuild and upload the patched version to their phone.
      - ksherlock 7y ago
        There was an iOS email client a few years back that used some LGPL components. They complied by providing the object files so you could, in theory, re-link (and re-sign) using your own updated LGPL library. Ahh, here we go: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4302517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4302517 https://web.archive.org/web/20140325063249/http://sprw.me/lgpl.php https://web.archive.org/web/20140325063249/http://sprw.me/lg...
        vunie 7y ago
        Let me preface by emphasizing that IANAL, but I believe the issue isn't with the software vendor and is instead with the distribution platform (i.e Apple). The LGPLv3 mandates that users be allowed to modify the parts that are licensed by this license. The TOS of the Apple App Store explicitly disallows its users from modifying software they get from it, thereby running afoul of the LGPL. So this issue, as I understand it, is that neither the software vendor nor Apple have a license to distribute Qt on a platform that places additional restrictions on what the user may do with LGPL software. I think this is the reason why Apple removed VLC and other GPL software from their stores. Please correct me if I got this wrong.
        vunie 7y ago
        Cant edit my post, but here are a few links that you might find interesting: * FSF's opinion: https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance * General conscious: https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/6109/is-it-possible-to-have-gpl-software-in-the-mac-app-store https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/6109/is-it-possibl...
davet91 7y ago
The core of Qt is licensed under LGPL which means you can write and ship proprietary software with it. You just need to dynamically link and provide sources for the Qt libs if a user requests it.
inferiorhuman 7y ago
you know some of us have to also make money to pay for being alive and it's hard to bootstrap an application if you have to pay $5,508 up front, per developer, and then again on an annual basis Are you really surviving on $5,500 annually?
- zrobotics 7y ago
  $5.5k annually, even in the US, is still enough money to devote a few hours per week on a paid hobby project. I'm actually working on a side-project app right now, and if it makes >5.5k/year I'd be fairly pleased. Not enough to survive on, but as a sideline business that isn't terrible money as long as it doesn't consume 40 hours/week.
nly 7y ago
I see this out of date myth on every HN page discussing Qt. The fact that people still don't know that Qt is LGPL is damaging.
de_watcher 7y ago
I can't fathom how do people still don't understand the licensing and keep posting FUD about it. Every single time. How it's even possible? No, you don't have to pay anything to build and sell your proprietary software built with Qt.

pritambaral 7y ago

You can use Qt with closed source software, under the LGPL license that you don't have to pay for. Only the binaries that have Qt code need to be open. Don't statically link Qt libs into your closed-source code and you're good.

sroussey 7y ago
And put that in an app store?
- hellofunk 7y ago
  Yes, even on iOS.
  - kej 7y ago
    The LGPL requires end users to be able to view and modify the LGPL portion of the derivative work. Does iOS give end users that level of access to apps? (honest question, my outsider's impression of Apple is that they have stuff locked down more than that)
    - jcelerier 7y ago
      the problem with iOS was that you had to pay 99$ a year to upload apps to your own phone, which prevent use of GPL code since it removes your right to do stuff on your own hardware. Fortunately this restriction was lifted since Xcode 7 a few years ago and it's nowadays not a problem at all - there are plenty of GPL / LGPL apps on the app store. Just put the code and build instructions on github, what matters is that users can patch, rebuild and upload the patched version to their phone.
    - ksherlock 7y ago
      There was an iOS email client a few years back that used some LGPL components. They complied by providing the object files so you could, in theory, re-link (and re-sign) using your own updated LGPL library. Ahh, here we go: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4302517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4302517 https://web.archive.org/web/20140325063249/http://sprw.me/lgpl.php https://web.archive.org/web/20140325063249/http://sprw.me/lg...
      - vunie 7y ago
        Let me preface by emphasizing that IANAL, but I believe the issue isn't with the software vendor and is instead with the distribution platform (i.e Apple). The LGPLv3 mandates that users be allowed to modify the parts that are licensed by this license. The TOS of the Apple App Store explicitly disallows its users from modifying software they get from it, thereby running afoul of the LGPL. So this issue, as I understand it, is that neither the software vendor nor Apple have a license to distribute Qt on a platform that places additional restrictions on what the user may do with LGPL software. I think this is the reason why Apple removed VLC and other GPL software from their stores. Please correct me if I got this wrong.
        vunie 7y ago
        Cant edit my post, but here are a few links that you might find interesting: * FSF's opinion: https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance * General conscious: https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/6109/is-it-possible-to-have-gpl-software-in-the-mac-app-store https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/6109/is-it-possibl...

davet91 7y ago

The core of Qt is licensed under LGPL which means you can write and ship proprietary software with it. You just need to dynamically link and provide sources for the Qt libs if a user requests it.

inferiorhuman 7y ago

you know some of us have to also make money to pay for being alive and it's hard to bootstrap an application if you have to pay $5,508 up front, per developer, and then again on an annual basis Are you really surviving on $5,500 annually?

zrobotics 7y ago
$5.5k annually, even in the US, is still enough money to devote a few hours per week on a paid hobby project. I'm actually working on a side-project app right now, and if it makes >5.5k/year I'd be fairly pleased. Not enough to survive on, but as a sideline business that isn't terrible money as long as it doesn't consume 40 hours/week.

nly 7y ago

I see this out of date myth on every HN page discussing Qt. The fact that people still don't know that Qt is LGPL is damaging.

de_watcher 7y ago

I can't fathom how do people still don't understand the licensing and keep posting FUD about it. Every single time. How it's even possible? No, you don't have to pay anything to build and sell your proprietary software built with Qt.