5 ms·

While the core product is LGPLv3+Commercial, most of their extensions are GPLv3+Commercial which makes them not suitable for a lot of apps. Hence I find it's a

While the core product is LGPLv3+Commercial, most of their extensions are GPLv3+Commercial which makes them not suitable for a lot of apps. Hence I find it's a bit confusing to say "to be committed to open source" where in practice the only way to use their extension is either to release your apps code (given you distribute the app) or pay for commercial license. IMHO "to be committed to free software" would represent extensions situation a bit better.

Rochus 6y ago
I think most developers get along pretty well with only the parts available under LGPL; that's not the issue. It's more of an issue that the The Company only represents a fraction of the commit log but even though sells commercial licences of work done by other companies. I'm sure more companies would contribute to Qt if there wasn't this dual licence nuisance and they weren't forec to sign a contributor licence agreement which puts The Company in charge of their work.
- slavik81 6y ago
  Commits by employer, for reference: https://macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/qt5.employer.relative.png https://macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/qt5.employer.r...
  - Rochus 6y ago
    Ok, a bit more than last year. One should also analyze what parts were commited. There is a significant difference in the commits by company to the core framework and the new 3D tools and other parts that The Company wants to make money with.
    - slavik81 6y ago
      The stats for qtbase are pretty similar. I suppose I might as well link the full page for folks: https://macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/ https://macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/
      - Rochus 6y ago
        Thanks. It was quite different when I looked at it a year ago. Maybe the new activity is because of Qt 6.
kovac 6y ago
Considering the quality and capabilities of Qt, I really think they should just sell commercial licences. Considering the fact that the engineers at Qt need to pay to eat and pay their bills just like me, I find it absurd to expect something like this for free. In that sense, I think the current situation is very gracious.
- dmytroi 6y ago
  I fully agree it would be great for Qt as a company to have a great business model. That being said, it's not that obvious if making Qt as a product commercial-only would be effective, as there are other options on a market that don't cost anything (or much). Maybe Qt should pivot into services instead?
- Nokinside 6y ago
  It's not gracious. They have binding contract with KDE to release the code as open source within 12 months. They can't change that without negotiating new contract. That would require giving something to get something in return. Only thing they can do is to do just the minimum. This is the current issue. They are moving towards the bare minimum.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- detaro 6y ago
  What about all the people not working at Qt Company that wrote most of the code? Qt company immensely benefits from the work done by others under the condition it remains also available under open source licenses.
  - kovac 6y ago
    This is a good point but I'm not going to be too quick to comment on those developers. Because they may be working on paid products and they contribute to the upstream project when they find certain features missing. I like opensource, I myself am a Linux user. I just like a world where perhaps individual devs can build nifty useful software that we pay a small fee for and use. This way the small guys can benefit. Unfortunately, the current state of OSS (which has changes since the early days) are concentrating more power in the hands of a few organizations. Take Sublime Text for example. I like it that an engineer builds something useful, ask a one time fee for it and we pay something really affordable for it (while there was also a free version available). This way, talented software engineers could actually make a decent living without everyone has to build crappy software for an advert-based economy. So, IMHO, opensourcing the software is an act of grace and would be at the discretion of those engineers. To expect everything to be FOSS or perhaps even demand that, I find is detrimental for individual software engineers/small players.
anoncake 6y ago
How so? Promoting Open Source is the very point of the GPL.
- Rochus 6y ago
  You won't get any support of the "big money" unless the library is at least LGPL so it can be used in closed source applications. GPL is primarily for the idealists, not for business.
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    Using the product while making a closed source application and contributing nothing (money or patches) back can hardly be construed as promoting open source. The "big money" that won't play ball is why they instead have the commercial licensing options.
    - Rochus 6y ago
      Nobody claims that. The problem today is that The Company only contributes a fraction to the maintenance and sells licences which includes work done by others. That's a pain point, isn't it?
      - cycloptic 6y ago
        I don't believe that is the real pain point. The Company could resolve it easily by paying contributors in exchange for signing the CLA. What is more likely is that they can't afford to do this.
        Rochus 6y ago
        That would be much too complicated. Just imagine such a model with OpenCV or some of the other big C++ frameworks. Selling framework licenses is just an outdated business model. It would make more sense to release the Qt framework under BSD and make money with add-on services (as other companies actually do successfully).
Nokinside 6y ago
> GPLv3+Commercial which makes them not suitable for a lot of apps. In other words, the license is not suitable for users who are not committed to open source themselves but are not willing to pay either. Dual licensing with GPL is IMHO the best and often only viable method from the business point of view for small and medium sized companies who sell product and not just service. QT Company has large customers that are much bigger than it is. Many of them in software business. Turning into yet another software as a service producer for Autodesk or car manufacturers is not in their interests.
j1elo 6y ago
> most of their extensions are GPLv3 [...] in practice the only way to use their extension is either to release your apps code Which is exactly what improves and helps grow the open-source world? GPL makes a product's code, and by infection/extension, other people's code, to be all released under a GPL license. GPL guarantees that users of open-source code won't act as leeches and will themselves contribute more open-source code. Isn't the act of choosing that license, in itself, "a huge commitment" to open-source? Then they say: OK, seems you want to keep your code private, in order to preserve your IP and leverage over other competitors, and protect your lucrative interests... well that's fine too! You don't want our open-source license forcing you to contribute your code? Fine, we'll waive that requirement. Just pay up.
jcelerier 6y ago
> While the core product is LGPLv3+Commercial, most of their extensions are GPLv3+Commercial which makes them not suitable for a lot of apps. this is FUD - the immense majority of Qt is under LGPL. You can build literally entire OSes out of the LGPL parts. The only strictly GPL parts are (from this page https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtmodules.html https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtmodules.html) : - Qt Charts - Qt Data Visualization - Qt Network Authorization - Qt Virtual Keyboard - Qt for WebAssembly - Qt Quick WebGL All the widgets, qt quick, etc... stuff is available under LGPL.
- oefrha 6y ago
  Yeah, can't find another cross-platform UI library with Qt's selection of (permissive license-compatible) widgets. Other UI libraries tend to look like crap (at least on macOS), too.
de_watcher 6y ago
The biggest problem of Qt is the FUD just like you're spreading. No. All is LGPL except for some niche libraries.

Rochus 6y ago

I think most developers get along pretty well with only the parts available under LGPL; that's not the issue. It's more of an issue that the The Company only represents a fraction of the commit log but even though sells commercial licences of work done by other companies. I'm sure more companies would contribute to Qt if there wasn't this dual licence nuisance and they weren't forec to sign a contributor licence agreement which puts The Company in charge of their work.

slavik81 6y ago
Commits by employer, for reference: https://macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/qt5.employer.relative.png https://macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/qt5.employer.r...
- Rochus 6y ago
  Ok, a bit more than last year. One should also analyze what parts were commited. There is a significant difference in the commits by company to the core framework and the new 3D tools and other parts that The Company wants to make money with.
  - slavik81 6y ago
    The stats for qtbase are pretty similar. I suppose I might as well link the full page for folks: https://macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/ https://macieira.org/~thiago/qt-stats/current/
    - Rochus 6y ago
      Thanks. It was quite different when I looked at it a year ago. Maybe the new activity is because of Qt 6.

kovac 6y ago

Considering the quality and capabilities of Qt, I really think they should just sell commercial licences. Considering the fact that the engineers at Qt need to pay to eat and pay their bills just like me, I find it absurd to expect something like this for free. In that sense, I think the current situation is very gracious.

dmytroi 6y ago
I fully agree it would be great for Qt as a company to have a great business model. That being said, it's not that obvious if making Qt as a product commercial-only would be effective, as there are other options on a market that don't cost anything (or much). Maybe Qt should pivot into services instead?
Nokinside 6y ago
It's not gracious. They have binding contract with KDE to release the code as open source within 12 months. They can't change that without negotiating new contract. That would require giving something to get something in return. Only thing they can do is to do just the minimum. This is the current issue. They are moving towards the bare minimum.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
detaro 6y ago
What about all the people not working at Qt Company that wrote most of the code? Qt company immensely benefits from the work done by others under the condition it remains also available under open source licenses.
- kovac 6y ago
  This is a good point but I'm not going to be too quick to comment on those developers. Because they may be working on paid products and they contribute to the upstream project when they find certain features missing. I like opensource, I myself am a Linux user. I just like a world where perhaps individual devs can build nifty useful software that we pay a small fee for and use. This way the small guys can benefit. Unfortunately, the current state of OSS (which has changes since the early days) are concentrating more power in the hands of a few organizations. Take Sublime Text for example. I like it that an engineer builds something useful, ask a one time fee for it and we pay something really affordable for it (while there was also a free version available). This way, talented software engineers could actually make a decent living without everyone has to build crappy software for an advert-based economy. So, IMHO, opensourcing the software is an act of grace and would be at the discretion of those engineers. To expect everything to be FOSS or perhaps even demand that, I find is detrimental for individual software engineers/small players.

anoncake 6y ago

How so? Promoting Open Source is the very point of the GPL.

Rochus 6y ago
You won't get any support of the "big money" unless the library is at least LGPL so it can be used in closed source applications. GPL is primarily for the idealists, not for business.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  Using the product while making a closed source application and contributing nothing (money or patches) back can hardly be construed as promoting open source. The "big money" that won't play ball is why they instead have the commercial licensing options.
  - Rochus 6y ago
    Nobody claims that. The problem today is that The Company only contributes a fraction to the maintenance and sells licences which includes work done by others. That's a pain point, isn't it?
    - cycloptic 6y ago
      I don't believe that is the real pain point. The Company could resolve it easily by paying contributors in exchange for signing the CLA. What is more likely is that they can't afford to do this.
      - Rochus 6y ago
        That would be much too complicated. Just imagine such a model with OpenCV or some of the other big C++ frameworks. Selling framework licenses is just an outdated business model. It would make more sense to release the Qt framework under BSD and make money with add-on services (as other companies actually do successfully).

Nokinside 6y ago

> GPLv3+Commercial which makes them not suitable for a lot of apps. In other words, the license is not suitable for users who are not committed to open source themselves but are not willing to pay either. Dual licensing with GPL is IMHO the best and often only viable method from the business point of view for small and medium sized companies who sell product and not just service. QT Company has large customers that are much bigger than it is. Many of them in software business. Turning into yet another software as a service producer for Autodesk or car manufacturers is not in their interests.

j1elo 6y ago

> most of their extensions are GPLv3 [...] in practice the only way to use their extension is either to release your apps code Which is exactly what improves and helps grow the open-source world? GPL makes a product's code, and by infection/extension, other people's code, to be all released under a GPL license. GPL guarantees that users of open-source code won't act as leeches and will themselves contribute more open-source code. Isn't the act of choosing that license, in itself, "a huge commitment" to open-source? Then they say: OK, seems you want to keep your code private, in order to preserve your IP and leverage over other competitors, and protect your lucrative interests... well that's fine too! You don't want our open-source license forcing you to contribute your code? Fine, we'll waive that requirement. Just pay up.

jcelerier 6y ago

> While the core product is LGPLv3+Commercial, most of their extensions are GPLv3+Commercial which makes them not suitable for a lot of apps. this is FUD - the immense majority of Qt is under LGPL. You can build literally entire OSes out of the LGPL parts. The only strictly GPL parts are (from this page https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtmodules.html https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtmodules.html) : - Qt Charts - Qt Data Visualization - Qt Network Authorization - Qt Virtual Keyboard - Qt for WebAssembly - Qt Quick WebGL All the widgets, qt quick, etc... stuff is available under LGPL.

oefrha 6y ago
Yeah, can't find another cross-platform UI library with Qt's selection of (permissive license-compatible) widgets. Other UI libraries tend to look like crap (at least on macOS), too.

de_watcher 6y ago

The biggest problem of Qt is the FUD just like you're spreading. No. All is LGPL except for some niche libraries.