5 ms·

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, t

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. :)
        yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
        LGPL != GPL
        jcelerier 7y ago
        > So Macs are out of question... Can't be signed can they? ... you know that even Apple ships some GPL software on every Mac right ? GPL is 100% fine mac hardware. There are even GPL apps on the appstore. Signing does not prevent you to upload a new version of the app to your own device.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  How dare them, wanting to be paid for their work! A business partner has enough money to actually pay for licenses.

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. :)
      - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
        LGPL != GPL
      - jcelerier 7y ago
        > So Macs are out of question... Can't be signed can they? ... you know that even Apple ships some GPL software on every Mac right ? GPL is 100% fine mac hardware. There are even GPL apps on the appstore. Signing does not prevent you to upload a new version of the app to your own device.
pjmlp 7y ago
How dare them, wanting to be paid for their work! A business partner has enough money to actually pay for licenses.