3 ms·
Qt is nice but costs money for developers of proprietary software. Electron has its own costs but most of them are externalized to the user. So it wins out.
by est31 6y ago
Qt is nice but costs money for developers of proprietary software. Electron has its own costs but most of them are externalized to the user. So it wins out.
- maple3142 6y agoI guess there will be people going to say that QT is LGPL, which allows people to use in proprietary applications. But I think there must be people who just want permissive alternative, and Electron is MIT, so it is indeed more viable (liceise wise).
- berkut 6y ago? It's LGPL, so as long as you link dynamically, it's fine for proprietary software to use it. A lot of commercial proprietary software in the VFX industry does this (Nuke, Katana, Mari, Maya, Houdini, etc).
- est31 6y agoIDK a lot of proprietary developers don't understand the LGPL and are scared by its copyleft. They like how simple the MIT license is. Also, apple's app store is famously LGPL-incompatible.
- heavyset_go 6y ago> Also, apple's app store is famously LGPL-incompatible. If you're shipping a proprietary application that links to LGPL libraries in accordance to the license, that's fine. It's GPL applications that the App Store bans.
- est31 6y agoNot a lawyer but LGPLv3 contains the anti tivoization rule, which might cause issues with the mandatory signing.
- billsix 6y agoIIRC, Qt has been licensed under the LGPL for many many years, so you can develop proprietary software that dynamically links to Qt no cost.