7 ms·

Qt's license and cost is another valid reason to continue developing on GTK

emilsedgh 7y ago
Qt is free and LGPL for Audacious, any other FOSS app, or any other project that is not looking to ship a patched version of Qt.
- slavik81 7y ago
  It's even free if you want to ship a patched version of Qt, as long as you also share the modified Qt code.
mixedCase 7y ago
All the important parts of Qt are available under LGPLv3. This only makes a difference to you if you want to do Tivoization of your software (Gtk uses LGPLv2, this being the only major difference AFAIK). In which case you still have the option to buy a commercial license.
- jjoonathan 7y ago
  Yeeeeahhh.... at the moment. They have gotten really aggressive about commercial licensing recently, and even a conservative extrapolation should give one pause. Today they might limit themselves to forced registration, SEO, and spamming business contacts with carefully crafted statements designed to stir fear, uncertainty, and doubt around free licenses by strongly suggesting (without actually claiming) that commercial use without a commercial license is illegal. But tomorrow? Also, keep in mind that a business partner who isn't already familiar with Qt and LGPL is going to be about 10x more susceptible to the FUD. That's the whole idea. My guess: 30% chance of an ugly fork and lots of drama in the next few years. Then, absent a change in direction, another 30% chance in the few years after that, and so on.
  - nabla9 7y ago
    Qt will be free because there is agreement with KDE Free Qt Foundation https://dot.kde.org/2016/01/13/qt-guaranteed-stay-free-and-open-%E2%80%93-legal-update https://dot.kde.org/2016/01/13/qt-guaranteed-stay-free-and-o...
    - jjoonathan 7y ago
      The Qt Company went over my head and tried to deceive my boss (as I perceive it). We don't even use Qt. I was just evaluating it. A year before they "reached out." I still see that as a strike against Qt, even though I understand that the existence of a technically free fork is effectively guaranteed.
  - stormdennis 7y ago
    Yes, there is a lot of FUD about the licensing for Qt when you search online, definitely not helped by how unclear the Qt site's explanation of it is (to me at least)
    - jjoonathan 7y ago
      > unclear That's charitable. The FUD is consistent, persistent, and targeted enough that I'd call it "intentionally deceptive." Monetizing open source is hard. Maybe this is necessary, and if it is, maybe that's fair. But it's also fair to stay away because of it.
      - Frondo 7y ago
        I don't find this unclear at all. I'm not sure what you would do to make it clearer. Thoughts? https://www.qt.io/download-open-source?hsCtaTracking=9f6a2170-a938-42df-a8e2-a9f0b1d6cdce%7C6cb0de4f-9bb5-4778-ab02-bfb62735f3e5#consider https://www.qt.io/download-open-source?hsCtaTracking=9f6a217...
        minraws 7y ago
        > Make "open" consumer devices So Macs are out of question... Can't be signed can they? What if we get a commercial license? Apple disallowes GPL... Can't support GTK either, Expat Licensed GUI alternatives please...(I suggest Godot but it comes with a bit of pain and some baggage as well) There are also other corner cases that they might want to cover, with more documentation.(Not sure if I have missed something) If anyone has more info pls do share it. :)
arendtio 7y ago
I thought the license issue was one of the past?
cztomsik 7y ago
Both reasons are why I'm trying to develop an OSS alternative with easiness & platform-independence of the web but much lower system requirements than what electron has. I'm currently close to prealpha, if you're interested. https://github.com/cztomsik/graffiti/ https://github.com/cztomsik/graffiti/
- wccrawford 7y ago
  A friend and I were just wishing something like this existed. "pre-prealpha" is a bit too early for me, but I definitely wish you luck in this.
- jamesgeck0 7y ago
  Under project scope, there's this statement: > To name just a few things you usually don't need: ... flawless i18n & accessibility Lack of basic accessibility support is (or should be) a complete nonstarter for any serious project.
  - gmueckl 7y ago
    Also, what is "flawless" i18n support?
    - cztomsik 7y ago
      To have what browsers do. And getting there would take few months on its own so it's not a priority right now.
  - DonHopkins 7y ago
    I'd demand better than basic accessibility support! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSh0dAaqIA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSh0dAaqIA
    - cztomsik 7y ago
      you can join the effort and help me, the scope is limited to something I can do myself in reasonable time :-)
simias 7y ago
Qt being C++ also makes creating language bindings often harder so not all languages will let you build a Qt interface. GTK is C so it's more straightforward.
Zardoz84 7y ago
Update you. Qt has been LGPL many years.

Qt is free and LGPL for Audacious, any other FOSS app, or any other project that is not looking to ship a patched version of Qt.

slavik81 7y ago
It's even free if you want to ship a patched version of Qt, as long as you also share the modified Qt code.

mixedCase 7y ago

All the important parts of Qt are available under LGPLv3. This only makes a difference to you if you want to do Tivoization of your software (Gtk uses LGPLv2, this being the only major difference AFAIK). In which case you still have the option to buy a commercial license.

jjoonathan 7y ago
Yeeeeahhh.... at the moment. They have gotten really aggressive about commercial licensing recently, and even a conservative extrapolation should give one pause. Today they might limit themselves to forced registration, SEO, and spamming business contacts with carefully crafted statements designed to stir fear, uncertainty, and doubt around free licenses by strongly suggesting (without actually claiming) that commercial use without a commercial license is illegal. But tomorrow? Also, keep in mind that a business partner who isn't already familiar with Qt and LGPL is going to be about 10x more susceptible to the FUD. That's the whole idea. My guess: 30% chance of an ugly fork and lots of drama in the next few years. Then, absent a change in direction, another 30% chance in the few years after that, and so on.
- nabla9 7y ago
  Qt will be free because there is agreement with KDE Free Qt Foundation https://dot.kde.org/2016/01/13/qt-guaranteed-stay-free-and-open-%E2%80%93-legal-update https://dot.kde.org/2016/01/13/qt-guaranteed-stay-free-and-o...
  - jjoonathan 7y ago
    The Qt Company went over my head and tried to deceive my boss (as I perceive it). We don't even use Qt. I was just evaluating it. A year before they "reached out." I still see that as a strike against Qt, even though I understand that the existence of a technically free fork is effectively guaranteed.
- stormdennis 7y ago
  Yes, there is a lot of FUD about the licensing for Qt when you search online, definitely not helped by how unclear the Qt site's explanation of it is (to me at least)
  - jjoonathan 7y ago
    > unclear That's charitable. The FUD is consistent, persistent, and targeted enough that I'd call it "intentionally deceptive." Monetizing open source is hard. Maybe this is necessary, and if it is, maybe that's fair. But it's also fair to stay away because of it.
    - Frondo 7y ago
      I don't find this unclear at all. I'm not sure what you would do to make it clearer. Thoughts? https://www.qt.io/download-open-source?hsCtaTracking=9f6a2170-a938-42df-a8e2-a9f0b1d6cdce%7C6cb0de4f-9bb5-4778-ab02-bfb62735f3e5#consider https://www.qt.io/download-open-source?hsCtaTracking=9f6a217...
      - minraws 7y ago
        > Make "open" consumer devices So Macs are out of question... Can't be signed can they? What if we get a commercial license? Apple disallowes GPL... Can't support GTK either, Expat Licensed GUI alternatives please...(I suggest Godot but it comes with a bit of pain and some baggage as well) There are also other corner cases that they might want to cover, with more documentation.(Not sure if I have missed something) If anyone has more info pls do share it. :)

arendtio 7y ago

I thought the license issue was one of the past?

cztomsik 7y ago

Both reasons are why I'm trying to develop an OSS alternative with easiness & platform-independence of the web but much lower system requirements than what electron has. I'm currently close to prealpha, if you're interested. https://github.com/cztomsik/graffiti/ https://github.com/cztomsik/graffiti/

wccrawford 7y ago
A friend and I were just wishing something like this existed. "pre-prealpha" is a bit too early for me, but I definitely wish you luck in this.
jamesgeck0 7y ago
Under project scope, there's this statement: > To name just a few things you usually don't need: ... flawless i18n & accessibility Lack of basic accessibility support is (or should be) a complete nonstarter for any serious project.
- gmueckl 7y ago
  Also, what is "flawless" i18n support?
  - cztomsik 7y ago
    To have what browsers do. And getting there would take few months on its own so it's not a priority right now.
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  I'd demand better than basic accessibility support! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSh0dAaqIA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSh0dAaqIA
  - cztomsik 7y ago
    you can join the effort and help me, the scope is limited to something I can do myself in reasonable time :-)

simias 7y ago

Qt being C++ also makes creating language bindings often harder so not all languages will let you build a Qt interface. GTK is C so it's more straightforward.

Zardoz84 7y ago

Update you. Qt has been LGPL many years.