3 ms·
It's an inconvenience, but it's a requirement for the developer and not the end user. Hardly the main criteria when selecting your framework is it?
by distances 7y ago
It's an inconvenience, but it's a requirement for the developer and not the end user. Hardly the main criteria when selecting your framework is it?
- nottorp 7y agoProblem is, if you check out qt.io you'll get an almost Oracle like impression. That is, "don't go near us unless you have a full time legal department". "Download the open source version if you're sure you can comply with the LGPL" is just a threat, pure and simple. Thus, I wouldn't touch Qt in a commercial venture that is too small to have full time legal counsel on hand. 5500/year/developer is significant just about everywhere outside Silicon Valley. [Editing comment because we're over HN's threading limits] @avamander: But who decides that I've complied with the LGPL? Do you think it's as simple as dynamically linking with their provided binaries and making public any patches to Qt? I don't think so. It smells to me that if they decide you owe them money, there'll be a lawsuit coming.
- Avamander 7y agoI don't find it a loss if you can't comply with libre software's licenses and don't then use them illegally. I am also glad Qt makes it clear that licenses should be respected.