3 ms·

So, cards on the table I've been a Qt apologist, but the subscription thing for distribution seems nuts. But I'm genuinely curious: if I wanted to build a {thin

So, cards on the table I've been a Qt apologist, but the subscription thing for distribution seems nuts. But I'm genuinely curious: if I wanted to build a {thing}, how should I license it so that I can get credit and make money for my work, while also supporting FOSS? I think traditionally the model here is "GPL or you can pay for a perpetual commercial license". I think that's reasonable (and I think clearly not what Qt is doing anymore) strategy; are there things I should consider?

Nokinside 6y ago
Qt is for-profit business forced to provide open source library. Isn't that better than paying peanuts for struggling dual-licensing open source company? Qt company is publicly listed for-profit company with zero interest in open source. Their business is growing fast and their stock is up 700% in last 3 years. Qt is contractually obligated to to provide LGPL version for the core library forever. Recently they just retreated to minimum requirement their legal agreement with KDE foundation requires. Yes, Qt the company does not want to serve those who use LGPL license, but that's just small number of extra hoops for free product you don't have to pay for.
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  TIL The Qt Company's stock ticker is 2QT.
  - urmish 6y ago
    That's under the Frankfurt Stock Exchange (FRA). Under Helsinki Stock Exchange (HEL), it is QTCOM. Company was founded in Finland.
yboris 6y ago
It's not the answer you wanted, but to cure you of all the legal headaches, consider Electron, with its MIT License :)
- jcelerier 6y ago
  Electron uses Blink as a renderer which is LGPL. Everyone who ships an Electron app has to apply to the LGPL terms in the exact same way than for Qt. It's just the Electron API itself which is MIT. If I'm not mistaken, Electron also ships with FFMPEG which is also LGPL. Source: the copyright headers here: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/refs/heads/master/Source/core/dom/Document.h https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/refs/head...

Nokinside 6y ago

Qt is for-profit business forced to provide open source library. Isn't that better than paying peanuts for struggling dual-licensing open source company? Qt company is publicly listed for-profit company with zero interest in open source. Their business is growing fast and their stock is up 700% in last 3 years. Qt is contractually obligated to to provide LGPL version for the core library forever. Recently they just retreated to minimum requirement their legal agreement with KDE foundation requires. Yes, Qt the company does not want to serve those who use LGPL license, but that's just small number of extra hoops for free product you don't have to pay for.

formerly_proven 6y ago
TIL The Qt Company's stock ticker is 2QT.
- urmish 6y ago
  That's under the Frankfurt Stock Exchange (FRA). Under Helsinki Stock Exchange (HEL), it is QTCOM. Company was founded in Finland.

yboris 6y ago

It's not the answer you wanted, but to cure you of all the legal headaches, consider Electron, with its MIT License :)

jcelerier 6y ago
Electron uses Blink as a renderer which is LGPL. Everyone who ships an Electron app has to apply to the LGPL terms in the exact same way than for Qt. It's just the Electron API itself which is MIT. If I'm not mistaken, Electron also ships with FFMPEG which is also LGPL. Source: the copyright headers here: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/refs/heads/master/Source/core/dom/Document.h https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/refs/head...