5 ms·
> Only on the FOSS world, because it is the only way to force devs to pay. What about the approach that the Qt library uses, where they have a free GPL version
by the_local_host 6y ago
> Only on the FOSS world, because it is the only way to force devs to pay.
What about the approach that the Qt library uses, where they have a free GPL version and a paid commercial license? People might pay to avoid GPL obligations while using the library.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoA nitpick, but that's not true of Qt any more. You can use the latest Qt under the LGPL3 licence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(software)
- pjmlp 6y agoA good one, yet go check the crowd with pitchforks and torches heading to Qt castle.
- johannes1234321 6y agoFor the ones missing the context: The Qt Company recently changed their publishing model and they provide only recent versions as (L)GPL. Thus Open source users have to migrate to Qt 6 or run an outdated version of 5.7, missing bugfix releases. Migrating to Qt 6 however isn't easy as some components aren't available for Qt 6, yet. Thus Open Source users requiring those modules can't go anywhere. Aside from that the Qt company restricted access to their builds behind a registration wall. And if you are willing to pay they created a pricing model, which isn't easy to understand and can become quite expensive, (233$/month/developer) and as it's a subscription you can't simply pay a license and go from there, but you have to subscribe and the moment you terminate the agreement you are forbidden from distributing your application any further with Qt. Thus unhappy open source users and many users who at least claim they would like to buy for sensible cost, but can't afford.
- nly 6y ago5.15, not 5.7, but everything else you say is true