3 ms·

>Clause 11.3.2. The developers must also delete all installed copies of commercial Qt tools and Qt libraries. Qt customer can keep some developer licenses to co

by aftbit 2y ago

>Clause 11.3.2. The developers must also delete all installed copies of commercial Qt tools and Qt libraries. Qt customer can keep some developer licenses to continue the support of their End Customers. Bug fixing is OK. Adding new features is not OK. Jeez I'd hate to be the engineer who has to explain in court that my change was a bug fix and not a feature improvement. Why do people even buy QT Commercial? LGPL is a very easy license to comply with. Are there better tools for commercial users or something?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ghosty141 2y ago
> Are there better tools for commercial users or something? Some software components are only available via the commercial license (QtQuick3D is a big one, Qt3D is very barebones and you basically have to do everything via shaders). Also you get "support" which can be nice for new developers but doesn't get you very in-depth technical answers, at least from my experience. Booking support time/workshops directly via KDAB or Qt to adress specific issues is a better investment than paying the commercial license just for that.
- josephcsible 2y ago
  QtQuick3D isn't only available via the commercial license. It's available under the GPLv3 too. And https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation/ https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation/ means that they can never make any add-ons that are only available via the commercial license (on penalty of triggering the failsafe that would destroy the entirety of their existing sources of revenue).
ndiddy 2y ago
>Why do people even buy QT Commercial? LGPL is a very easy license to comply with. Qt is used a lot on embedded devices (i.e. car infotainment systems, smart TVs, smart appliances, etc). Complying with LGPLv3 means that the user must be allowed to reverse engineer the product and upload a modified version of the software to the product. This blocks practices such as firmware signing, so a lot of companies would rather pay for Qt than comply with LGPLv3.
- spookie 2y ago
  GPL 2 with the Classpath/Linking Exception? Still, not many do this.
- riedel 2y ago
  Why would you need to allow modifications the binary und er LGPL? You will need to ship the source of qt and all mods you made to it, but that is it. Or am I missing sth?
  - bramblerose 2y ago
    You also have to allow the end user to make changes to the LGPL software running on the device.
  - seba_dos1 2y ago
    Yes, you're missing the ability for the user to install and use the modified code, which is one of the main things that LGPLv3 introduced over LGPLv2.1.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    Unless the software is written to ROM or otherwise made not modifiable by anyone, the creators of the GPL intend that the end user gains the right to modify this software. If using a version before GPL/LGPL/AGPLv3, it is ok if the proprietary parts of the system stop running if the software is not an official build. With the v3 versions, even this is not ok. Now, I believe Linus Torvalds for example interprets the license differently, and doesn't believe that a company using Linux on an embedded system is obligated to allow their customers to apply a patch to this Linux system (and he certainly doesn't want the manufacturer to be forced to make their proprietary software run on top of the modified Linux, which is why he never wanted the Linux sources to be updated to GPLv3, even if it were feasible to do so).
    - riedel 2y ago
      OK, understood. One remaining question: is it enough to allow the re-linking to run in developer or emulated hw? Does LGPL e.g. forbid code signing of firmware?
wakawaka28 2y ago
Bug fixes are technically improvements but I think the language is clearly referring to totally new features. Bug fixes refer specifically to unexpected errors within the existing design. Not a redesign or substantial improvement. I have never had a Qt license but if you want to link a private application statically or get support, you have to have one.
- KMnO4 2y ago
  Bug: the product is missing a feature that we want it to have

by aftbit 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ghosty141 2y ago

> Are there better tools for commercial users or something? Some software components are only available via the commercial license (QtQuick3D is a big one, Qt3D is very barebones and you basically have to do everything via shaders). Also you get "support" which can be nice for new developers but doesn't get you very in-depth technical answers, at least from my experience. Booking support time/workshops directly via KDAB or Qt to adress specific issues is a better investment than paying the commercial license just for that.

josephcsible 2y ago
QtQuick3D isn't only available via the commercial license. It's available under the GPLv3 too. And https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation/ https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation/ means that they can never make any add-ons that are only available via the commercial license (on penalty of triggering the failsafe that would destroy the entirety of their existing sources of revenue).

ndiddy 2y ago

>Why do people even buy QT Commercial? LGPL is a very easy license to comply with. Qt is used a lot on embedded devices (i.e. car infotainment systems, smart TVs, smart appliances, etc). Complying with LGPLv3 means that the user must be allowed to reverse engineer the product and upload a modified version of the software to the product. This blocks practices such as firmware signing, so a lot of companies would rather pay for Qt than comply with LGPLv3.

spookie 2y ago
GPL 2 with the Classpath/Linking Exception? Still, not many do this.
riedel 2y ago
Why would you need to allow modifications the binary und er LGPL? You will need to ship the source of qt and all mods you made to it, but that is it. Or am I missing sth?
- bramblerose 2y ago
  You also have to allow the end user to make changes to the LGPL software running on the device.
- seba_dos1 2y ago
  Yes, you're missing the ability for the user to install and use the modified code, which is one of the main things that LGPLv3 introduced over LGPLv2.1.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  Unless the software is written to ROM or otherwise made not modifiable by anyone, the creators of the GPL intend that the end user gains the right to modify this software. If using a version before GPL/LGPL/AGPLv3, it is ok if the proprietary parts of the system stop running if the software is not an official build. With the v3 versions, even this is not ok. Now, I believe Linus Torvalds for example interprets the license differently, and doesn't believe that a company using Linux on an embedded system is obligated to allow their customers to apply a patch to this Linux system (and he certainly doesn't want the manufacturer to be forced to make their proprietary software run on top of the modified Linux, which is why he never wanted the Linux sources to be updated to GPLv3, even if it were feasible to do so).
  - riedel 2y ago
    OK, understood. One remaining question: is it enough to allow the re-linking to run in developer or emulated hw? Does LGPL e.g. forbid code signing of firmware?

wakawaka28 2y ago

Bug fixes are technically improvements but I think the language is clearly referring to totally new features. Bug fixes refer specifically to unexpected errors within the existing design. Not a redesign or substantial improvement. I have never had a Qt license but if you want to link a private application statically or get support, you have to have one.

KMnO4 2y ago
Bug: the product is missing a feature that we want it to have