3 ms·

I don't know what to think of it. On the one hand, they all seem niche enough and the upside is that Qt will be able to sustain its work. On the other hand, I'm

I don't know what to think of it. On the one hand, they all seem niche enough and the upside is that Qt will be able to sustain its work. On the other hand, I'm not sure if I want this to continue to accelerate till we can't develop regular GUI apps without GPL/commercial.

tristan957 3y ago
What is the problem with GPL/commercial? Everyone wins, especially users.
- rubymamis 3y ago
  People that are just starting out (bootstrappers), very small startups, or just people that can’t afford paying Qt’s license, but want/need to keep their code closed source this is a major block. It means you can’t use Qt without capital if you want your app to be close sourced. It creates sort of a chicken and egg problem for these people. They me be willing to pay for Qt’s license in the future, yet currently can’t afford to. Thus, they might abandon or not even start their Qt’s project.
  - tristan957 3y ago
    As long as you do not distribute your code to users, you can abide by the GPL. That means you can write your MVP before having to give The Qt Company a dime. The Qt Company also has small business pricing: https://www.qt.io/pricing/qt-for-small-business https://www.qt.io/pricing/qt-for-small-business.
    - _mlbt 3y ago
      $499 a year per seat is a bit steep for Indie developers until they’re pulling solid revenue. I prefer other pricing models where it is free until you hit enough revenue to be able to easily afford it.
      - rubymamis 3y ago
        Yes, that would be much better. Tho, they should keep it a fixed price and not percentage. Just make sure the people using your framework can actually use it before they become a success.
    - rubymamis 3y ago
      Yeah but if you’re a sole bootstrapper with no other wage job, you likely can’t pay for the license and therefore can’t distribute to users (in order to first, gain money). This is what I mean in chicken and egg. You basically can’t start your career with Qt if you are in that situation and rely on commercial license.

tristan957 3y ago

What is the problem with GPL/commercial? Everyone wins, especially users.

rubymamis 3y ago
People that are just starting out (bootstrappers), very small startups, or just people that can’t afford paying Qt’s license, but want/need to keep their code closed source this is a major block. It means you can’t use Qt without capital if you want your app to be close sourced. It creates sort of a chicken and egg problem for these people. They me be willing to pay for Qt’s license in the future, yet currently can’t afford to. Thus, they might abandon or not even start their Qt’s project.
- tristan957 3y ago
  As long as you do not distribute your code to users, you can abide by the GPL. That means you can write your MVP before having to give The Qt Company a dime. The Qt Company also has small business pricing: https://www.qt.io/pricing/qt-for-small-business https://www.qt.io/pricing/qt-for-small-business.
  - _mlbt 3y ago
    $499 a year per seat is a bit steep for Indie developers until they’re pulling solid revenue. I prefer other pricing models where it is free until you hit enough revenue to be able to easily afford it.
    - rubymamis 3y ago
      Yes, that would be much better. Tho, they should keep it a fixed price and not percentage. Just make sure the people using your framework can actually use it before they become a success.
  - rubymamis 3y ago
    Yeah but if you’re a sole bootstrapper with no other wage job, you likely can’t pay for the license and therefore can’t distribute to users (in order to first, gain money). This is what I mean in chicken and egg. You basically can’t start your career with Qt if you are in that situation and rely on commercial license.