3 ms·
Qt could be much larger if the licensing terms were not 5d chess for over a decade.
by 29athrowaway 3y ago
Qt could be much larger if the licensing terms were not 5d chess for over a decade.
- Zuiii 3y agoUnfortunately, Qt's only interest seems to lay in the squeezing of their old existing customers, an ever-dwindling customer base as embedded socs capable of running web browsers become cheaper and more accessible. They _still_ don't seem to be taking the threat of web technologies seriously; Where web tech can now run on desktop, mobile, and servers, QtWeb is still a legal and technical minefield. They also stopped distributing precompiled versions of Qt publicly, a baffling decision as it hurts their adoption rates even more. From what I see, the Qt Company behaves as if web technologies don't exist. It'll be interesting to see how this strategy will play out for them.
- dezgeg 3y agoThere's still plenty of embedded shops stuck thinking "it's embedded so only thing performant enough is C++", despite having multicore SoCs with multiple GBs of memory and integrated GPU. But I agree (and certainly hope so) that the amount of those companies go down.
- ahartmetz 3y agoThere are, in fact, still significant differences in price and energy use between "weaker" and "stronger" SoCs.
- account42 3y agoQt is already large enough, what license terms are needed to slim it down even further?
- ahartmetz 3y agoThe license is simply LGPL for almost all modules. Non-LGPL parts are not essential and / or can be replaced without too much trouble (onscreen keyboard). The 5D chess is an illusion created by the Qt Company marketing department - you can simply ignore it.
- ranger_danger 3y agoI think what they're implying is that many people simply discount it as an option because it's not immediately obvious. I have had to explain Qt's LGPL status to MANY people.