4 ms·
Qt is definitely not dead, rather alive and kicking. I've built my latest note-taking app[1] in Qt C++ and QML and it's been one of my best decisions. What the
by rubymamis 3y ago
Qt is definitely not dead, rather alive and kicking. I've built my latest note-taking app[1] in Qt C++ and QML and it's been one of my best decisions. What the Qt Company need to focus on is hunting bugs (there are many of those) and reduce their license fee (at least for indie developers), it's just too expensive[2].
[1] https://www.get-plume.com/ https://www.get-plume.com/
[2] https://www.qt.io/pricing https://www.qt.io/pricing
- nottorp 3y agoHave they given up on asking you 3 times if you are absolutely truely sure that you can comply with the license terms when you download the LGPL version? With that attitude I can't recommend it to any entity that can't afford a full time legal team.
- guappa 3y agoIf you install via apt you get no prompt whatsoever.
- nottorp 3y agoHeh, that's not the point. I was asking if they changed their attitude towards LGPL use or not.
- rubymamis 3y agoWhat's wrong with LGPL use? From what I gather, if you don't link Qt statically and don't modify Qt's source code, and your app's license doesn't impose restrictions that conflict with the LGPL, you are good to go. Most apps would fall under these criteria.
- nottorp 3y agoHave you checked their download page? :) https://www.qt.io/download-open-source https://www.qt.io/download-open-source Here you go. Now that I looked at it, it's not only threats any more, it's a combination of threats, lies * and begging. The point is not to discuss the properties of LGPL but Digia's attitude towards potential LGPL users. * "In return for the value you receive from using Qt to create your application, you are expected to give back by contributing to Qt or buying Qt." Where does the LGPL say that, I wonder?