3 ms·
Isn't Qt still proprietary or semi-proprietary?
by ForHackernews 2y ago
Isn't Qt still proprietary or semi-proprietary?
- jenadine 2y agoNo. (There might be side projects like the squish test framework or the MCU port that are proprietary, but Qt itself is fully free software)
- jonathanstrange 2y agoThis discussion is about the Qt binding library for Go, not Qt. The existing Qt binding they're talking about is LGPL and cannot be bound dynamically, and therefore makes the distribution of proprietary software impossible even with a full Qt license. This new binding alleviates this problem because it's MIT licensed. You still need to adhere to Qt's licensing, i.e., buy a commercial Qt license or bind Qt dynamically like most people do. Qt has a commercial and a LGPL licensed version.
- zerr 2y agoNo. Just Qt Company hides this as much as they can.
- prmoustache 2y agoIt is only proprietary if you are building proprietary code AND statically link to it but open source/free (LGPL) if you are building software with a compatible license or are linking dynamically. I think it is fair.
- michaelsbradley 2y agoLGPL doesn’t forbid linking statically with proprietary code.
- mappu 2y agoQt Widgets is GPL since Qt 2.2 in 2000, and LGPL since Qt 4.5 in 2009.
- nikanj 2y agoMost of Qt remains available under LGPL, but the Qt company does their best to dissuade you from using it without a commercial license. They have succeeded in convincing me, for example. I don't want to build anything on a platform where the vendor is trying to drive me away