4 ms·
> That said, the competition in this scene don't have better to offer anyway namely react native (web tech) and QT (LGPL). What's the downside in your perspect
by mhitza 3y ago
> That said, the competition in this scene don't have better to offer anyway namely react native (web tech) and QT (LGPL).
What's the downside in your perspective of Qt being LGPL? I'm more familiar with GPL and AGPL, but with LGPL as long as the user can swap out the linked LGPL libraries you should be good. What is the downside in that? I can only think of it being an issue if the application you build statically links all the libraries it depends upon.
- ducktective 3y agoThe LGPL is just a nuisance that startups always have to be wary about. Personally, yeah, I think Qt is leagues ahead of the alternatives.
- seabass-labrax 3y agoYou can just buy[1] Qt, which is of course why they chose the dual-licensing model in the first place. In my opinion, though, the amount of extremely high-quality free and open source software that is available to include in one's programs is so great, it really is worth spending the time to create a proper FOSS licence compliance plan and form a OSPO (Open Source Programme Office) in your organisation to execute it. If you actively pursue the benefits that can come from directly contributing to existing FOSS projects, the rewards are even greater. [1]: https://www.qt.io/pricing https://www.qt.io/pricing
- pzo 3y agoIt's not sure if you can use LGPL when you release app too iOS App Store - both from technical and legal perspective. Technical because there is no easy way for user to swap dynamically linked libraries. Another issue is most recent QT modules are released using GPL.