4 ms·
It would be misleading to call Qt the fruits of the labour of (the current) Qt Company. It is licensed under the LGPL though (however much its current owners m
by beojan 6y ago
It would be misleading to call Qt the fruits of the labour of (the current) Qt Company.
It is licensed under the LGPL though (however much its current owners may want to change this, they can't because of the KDE Free Qt agreement), which means you don't have to pay. All you have to do is dynamically link to the library instead of statically linking.
- pjmlp 6y agoIt is surely more than those leeching Qt for their own projects. The major contributors for Qt have always been the same regardless of the legal name of Qt owner. It is quite easy decision process, don't want to pay for Qt's development, use LGPL and GPL variants earn as much money as one is willing to give upstream. Decide to go commercial, then pay accordingly upstream.
- beojan 6y agoI think you misunderstand me, I think the LGPL is a perfectly good license for Qt and I have little sympathy for those who aren't willing to abide by it (not least because Qt is a rather large library, and there's no excuse for every application to load its own copy). > Decide to go commercial, then pay accordingly upstream. Hmm. The commercial license actually prohibits starting development under one of the open source licenses then switching to commercial. If you start under an open source license, you'll need to abide by the LGPL if you decide to go closed source (and of course what you've already released remains open source).