3 ms·

> Qt is fully open source since 2000 Not fully; only the X11 and embedded version was open source (GPL). The Windows version was only available under a commerc

by Rochus 6y ago

> Qt is fully open source since 2000 Not fully; only the X11 and embedded version was open source (GPL). The Windows version was only available under a commercial license until 2005. Because of GPL I had to pay for a commercial license for three platforms until 2008. LGPL became available in 2009. > I'm still sad that some people are spreading so much fud about it 20 years later It is not exactly the case that the Qt Company clearly points out to users that they can use Qt free of charge under LGPL; rather the opposite seems to be the case. I know various people who primarily bought a commercial licence because they did not consult their own legal advisor and instead followed the recommendations of the QTC sales people.

franga2000 6y ago
> I know various people who primarily bought a commercial licence because they did not consult their own legal advisor and instead followed the recommendations of the QTC sales people. To be fair, if they weren't willing to put in the relatively small amount of effort required to find out how it was licensed, they can clearly affort to pay for the commercial license and if that's true, they probably should do so anyways in order to fund its development. And yes, I know a very similar argument can be made for horrible dark patterns like the crap TurboTax in the US pulls, but B2B and B2C are very different situations (power imbalance).
- Rochus 6y ago
  > if they weren't willing to put in the relatively small amount of effort required to find out how it was licensed That's not the point. They are single developers or start-ups not used to match what they intended to develop with the LGPL license terms. Their primary mistake was to trust the sales guys. I had personal contact with some of them, and in no case was a commercial licence objectively necessary. Sure, it's not the only way inexperienced people get ripped off, but it doesn't help confidence and clarity, which is what this thread is about.

by Rochus 6y ago

franga2000 6y ago

> I know various people who primarily bought a commercial licence because they did not consult their own legal advisor and instead followed the recommendations of the QTC sales people. To be fair, if they weren't willing to put in the relatively small amount of effort required to find out how it was licensed, they can clearly affort to pay for the commercial license and if that's true, they probably should do so anyways in order to fund its development. And yes, I know a very similar argument can be made for horrible dark patterns like the crap TurboTax in the US pulls, but B2B and B2C are very different situations (power imbalance).

Rochus 6y ago
> if they weren't willing to put in the relatively small amount of effort required to find out how it was licensed That's not the point. They are single developers or start-ups not used to match what they intended to develop with the LGPL license terms. Their primary mistake was to trust the sales guys. I had personal contact with some of them, and in no case was a commercial licence objectively necessary. Sure, it's not the only way inexperienced people get ripped off, but it doesn't help confidence and clarity, which is what this thread is about.