4 ms·

> The KDE foundation agreement is the only reason they still release Qt as open source And the KDE foundation is the only thing putting QT on the map. They wou

> The KDE foundation agreement is the only reason they still release Qt as open source And the KDE foundation is the only thing putting QT on the map. They wouldn't dare break the agreement, unless they want to burn their company to the ground.

jraph 5y ago
I'd say KDE and this agreement are why I would still consider using an open source version of Qt for a new project today. The whole KDE ecosystem will probably always need more stuff from Qt than me and I don't see KDE disappear overnight so I feel covered. A Qt app is so much lighter, faster and more enjoyable to use than any electron app. GTK still doesn't click for me as a programmer. Alternatives don't feel as functional as those three options.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  I like GTK, but the falloff in developer experience since 4.0 is really pathetic. Then there's a lot of petty changes I hate too, but that's a discussuon for another time. Word on the street is that KDE's maintainers plan to fork an older version of Qt for their desktop, but I guess only time will tell... Edit: The KDE bit is wrong, I still stand by the first portion though.
  - sho_hn 5y ago
    There's no such plan I am aware of.
Longhanks 5y ago
There are at least some car manufacturers paying for Qt that do not care at all about this issue. On the other hand, I really doubt the open source community is responsible for a large chunk of the Qt company's income. Sure, breaking the agreement would further hurt their image in the open source community, but I doubt it would have a large impact on the company's future.
- sho_hn 5y ago
  > There are at least some car manufacturers paying for Qt that do not care at all about this issue. I work for a car company using Qt. The open source community around Qt is a significant contributor to the talent pool we hire from (myself included), and it is also a regular contributor to (and indirectly/broadly, the inspiration for) integration-related Qt modules (e.g. QtWayland) we like. Its health is important.
pjmlp 5y ago
What puts Qt on the map are the companies keep paying their developers.
- MarcellusDrum 5y ago
  But why would your average developer even bother learning about QT if not because of its popularity in the open source community? The companies that pay for QT will have a hard time finding talent if QT wasn't popular due to its open source nature.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    For the same reasons people actually pay for their worktools, and specific software or cloud certifications. Plus the GPL version is good enough for the said developer to learn Qt if it happens to be out of cash.

jraph 5y ago

I'd say KDE and this agreement are why I would still consider using an open source version of Qt for a new project today. The whole KDE ecosystem will probably always need more stuff from Qt than me and I don't see KDE disappear overnight so I feel covered. A Qt app is so much lighter, faster and more enjoyable to use than any electron app. GTK still doesn't click for me as a programmer. Alternatives don't feel as functional as those three options.

smoldesu 5y ago
I like GTK, but the falloff in developer experience since 4.0 is really pathetic. Then there's a lot of petty changes I hate too, but that's a discussuon for another time. Word on the street is that KDE's maintainers plan to fork an older version of Qt for their desktop, but I guess only time will tell... Edit: The KDE bit is wrong, I still stand by the first portion though.
- sho_hn 5y ago
  There's no such plan I am aware of.

Longhanks 5y ago

There are at least some car manufacturers paying for Qt that do not care at all about this issue. On the other hand, I really doubt the open source community is responsible for a large chunk of the Qt company's income. Sure, breaking the agreement would further hurt their image in the open source community, but I doubt it would have a large impact on the company's future.

sho_hn 5y ago
> There are at least some car manufacturers paying for Qt that do not care at all about this issue. I work for a car company using Qt. The open source community around Qt is a significant contributor to the talent pool we hire from (myself included), and it is also a regular contributor to (and indirectly/broadly, the inspiration for) integration-related Qt modules (e.g. QtWayland) we like. Its health is important.

pjmlp 5y ago

What puts Qt on the map are the companies keep paying their developers.

MarcellusDrum 5y ago
But why would your average developer even bother learning about QT if not because of its popularity in the open source community? The companies that pay for QT will have a hard time finding talent if QT wasn't popular due to its open source nature.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  For the same reasons people actually pay for their worktools, and specific software or cloud certifications. Plus the GPL version is good enough for the said developer to learn Qt if it happens to be out of cash.