27 ms·
Bold move not adding the LGPL or other more open license for a library. I get it. They want it used for OSS or get paid. But I think that limits the user bas
by salmo 5y ago
Bold move not adding the LGPL or other more open license for a library. I get it. They want it used for OSS or get paid. But I think that limits the user base and therefore its appeal to folks who would actually pay for it.
It really will need to provide a superior technical product and more efficient dev experience like Qt did before Gtk "caught up" and forced the Qt license change.
If I'm a company, I'd rather use something I could hire folks who have experience with it unless it met those criteria. This is a crowded space, unlike "modern" X11 GUI frameworks at the time of Qt/early KDE.
From the look, there's no real differentiation here from the rest of the crowd. Maybe they'll hit that. As a big company, I'd pay for "support" for both that aspect and for input into the direction of the product. My big company does this for most OSS. But I don't do GUI dev in real life.
I won't ever use it personally because:
a) I won't pay for it for a hobby project. I'm probably going to go actual native and just hit 1 platform and do native on another if there's demand. If I'm going cross platform, I'm just going to do what everyone does these days: hit the web and forget about "native." Then use something clunky like Electron if I managed to be successful and folks wanted a local app.
b) I'm not going to license any OSS I make w/ the GPLv3+. Personal preference. Maybe enough people will disagree for them to get a user base.
It's a shame. I wanted to like it just because I love the band Slint.
- pcthrowaway 5y agoHave other people done this dual commercial/GPL license before? Doesn't selling it under a (non-free) commercial license go against everything the FSF stands for?
- colejohnson66 5y agoQt famously is dual commercial/LGPL licensed. And while a commercial offering does go against the FSF’s ideals, it’s a necessary evil in some circumstances.
- mkl 5y agoIt's quite common. Here are Richard Stallman's own words: "I've considered selling exceptions acceptable since the 1990s, and on occasion I've suggested it to companies. Sometimes this approach has made it possible for important programs to become free software." and "I consider selling exceptions an acceptable thing for a company to do, and I will suggest it where appropriate as a way to get programs freed." and more. The whole article is worth a read: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.en.html
- salmo 5y agoThe FSF party line is that it isn’t anti commercial and the GPL is copyleft, not viral. But you know… But dual licensing has been around for decades and I’ve never heard them oppose it. In practice here, no commercial licensee will want to maintain a fork. All improvements are in the OSS version available to any GPLed software.
- ogoffart 5y agoThere is also a free (as in beer) license: https://slint-ui.com/ambassador-program.html https://slint-ui.com/ambassador-program.html That should cover your need for your hobby project. For your OSS work, you can license your code in MIT, BSD, Apache, or any license compatible with the GPL3, as long as the combined product is GPL
- salmo 5y agoI can’t choose an option where the terms may change in the future. And that “combined software has to be GPL” isn’t OK with me. I’m just not happy with the GPL from a legal and philosophical stance. Totally recognize I’m weird and pedantic there. But yeah, not wanting to debate my personal choices, more speaking to how the licensing decisions may impact the business success. Making money w/ an open source product or really any library these days as your business’s product is hard. It’s hard to sell, commercially “extend”, or sell professional services around. I don’t envy the situation. It’s hard enough for RedisLabs, MongoDB, etc. who have more opportunities there.