5 ms·

Everytime a QT post comes someone bitch about the licensing model. And every time I google and try understand what is wrong with the licensing model. And everyt

by rrgok 1y ago

Everytime a QT post comes someone bitch about the licensing model. And every time I google and try understand what is wrong with the licensing model. And everytime I end up confused about it. Could you kindly ELI5 me what is wrong with QT licensing model?

joezydeco 1y ago
If you get confused by it then that's all that needs to be said. The rest has been discussed over and over. I've dropped Qt for other front-end tech and I'm happier now.
- CoastalCoder 1y ago
  I'm curious what you settled on and why. Care to elaborate?
  - ogoffart 1y ago
    Not OP, but some users migrated from Qt to Slint and are happy with it. [https://slint.dev https://slint.dev] (I'm one of the Slint developers.)
    - joezydeco 1y ago
      I'm rooting for you guys. Keep going!
  - joezydeco 1y ago
    I work on equipment that can't open itself under LGPL3 rules. So I had to stop Qt use at 5.15, which went under maintenance support over 3 years ago. I've switched to vanilla web technologies. Node, React, etc. It's painful and it sucks but hardware keeps getting faster and cheaper. I can find contractors easily and I don't need an increasingly expensive subscription^H^H^H^Hcontract with Qt to keep my developer seat hot. They tried multiple times to get me to abaondon my Qt5 license to switch to their new revenue model. I told them to fuck off.
- HeyLaughingBoy 1y ago
  Replying to this post because the thread's getting too deep. What was painful about switching to web tech for UI? I've proposed it at work a few times for exactly the same reasons: get away from Qt and ease of finding developers. Since our GUIs all run on Linux (we usually do the realtime stuff on an external ARM processor) it seemed like an easy transition, but I've been shot down every time. Would be nice to hear what the downsides are.
markfeathers 1y ago
From my perspective they spread FUD about open source licensing. QT core is LGPL3. Many applications would be fine with using LGPL3 in commercial applications. Read QT's landing page on licensing, and fossa has a good block post on requirements. https://www.qt.io/qt-licensing https://www.qt.io/qt-licensing https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-lgpl-license/ https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-lgp... >And everytime I end up confused about it. I think this is the point. If you're making a real application you may pay for the licensing to avoid the uncertainty/risk.
michaelsbradley 1y ago
It’s LGPL mostly, with some non-core libraries that are GPL or use other licenses: https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/licensing.html https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/licensing.html Over the years it has been noted by many that Qt’s wording and warnings about the LGPL amount to spreading FUD or outright misinformation in what seems like an attempt to scare managers and C-suite folks into buying commercial licenses “just in case”.
bradfa 1y ago
Qt (the company) releases MOST of their code under open source licenses, but not all. Qt4 was LGPLv2.1, Qt5 and beyond are under LGPLv3. In every major Qt release, there's a handful of super useful but kind of niche widgets which aren't released under open source licenses, presumably as a sales tactic as buying licenses gets you these widgets and sometimes that is cheaper than building them yourself, but unless you need these, you probably don't care about this. Although my experience attempting to buy licenses from Qt is about a decade out of date now, the way it roughly worked was you paid a per-seat-per-year fee to get a developer license or build-machine license. Then you bought bundles of deployment licenses, and the bigger the bundle then the lower the cost per license. If you are buying a bundle of a few thousand devices then you pay more per license than if you're buying a bundle of a few million. Either way, it is a significant chunk of cash you have to front to get your block of licenses and normally embedded projects are EXTREMELY sensitive to per-unit costs.
seba_dos1 1y ago
Nothing's wrong with their licensing model, but they've been known for misrepresenting their licensing model in order to steer people towards their commercial offerings.
bobmcnamara 1y ago
> And every time I google and try understand what is wrong with the licensing model. And everytime I end up confused about it. Could you kindly ELI5 me what is wrong with QT licensing model? This right here! We customers and users alike are often confused by QTs piecemeal licensing model.
- freedomben 1y ago
  I could be misunderstanding, but my read of the GP is that they aren't confused about the licensing model, they're confused by the hate for it
linhns 1y ago
Because it’s unclear and incomplete. Always prone to some KDE whims.
- Macha 1y ago
  KDE is an independent project from Qt and the only say they have is they have the right to release Qt under a BSD license if Qt Group removes the GPL option ( https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation/ https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation/ )
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
rcxdude 1y ago
A big one that I've heard, is that they are funny about you developing with it under an open source license and then buying a commercial license. I.e. if you would potentially want to use something that's under the commercial license then you need to buy it when you start development instead of when you find you want the commercial side. I don't know if this is still the case, though.
pjmlp 1y ago
Some people don't like to pay for the work of others, while expecting to be paid for their own work. Qt licensing is rather easy to understand. Don't want to pay Qt? Then get the same money yourself, zero. Want to get paid while selling a product based on Qt? Give something to Qt.

by rrgok 1y ago

joezydeco 1y ago

If you get confused by it then that's all that needs to be said. The rest has been discussed over and over. I've dropped Qt for other front-end tech and I'm happier now.

CoastalCoder 1y ago
I'm curious what you settled on and why. Care to elaborate?
- ogoffart 1y ago
  Not OP, but some users migrated from Qt to Slint and are happy with it. [https://slint.dev https://slint.dev] (I'm one of the Slint developers.)
  - joezydeco 1y ago
    I'm rooting for you guys. Keep going!
- joezydeco 1y ago
  I work on equipment that can't open itself under LGPL3 rules. So I had to stop Qt use at 5.15, which went under maintenance support over 3 years ago. I've switched to vanilla web technologies. Node, React, etc. It's painful and it sucks but hardware keeps getting faster and cheaper. I can find contractors easily and I don't need an increasingly expensive subscription^H^H^H^Hcontract with Qt to keep my developer seat hot. They tried multiple times to get me to abaondon my Qt5 license to switch to their new revenue model. I told them to fuck off.
HeyLaughingBoy 1y ago
Replying to this post because the thread's getting too deep. What was painful about switching to web tech for UI? I've proposed it at work a few times for exactly the same reasons: get away from Qt and ease of finding developers. Since our GUIs all run on Linux (we usually do the realtime stuff on an external ARM processor) it seemed like an easy transition, but I've been shot down every time. Would be nice to hear what the downsides are.

markfeathers 1y ago

From my perspective they spread FUD about open source licensing. QT core is LGPL3. Many applications would be fine with using LGPL3 in commercial applications. Read QT's landing page on licensing, and fossa has a good block post on requirements. https://www.qt.io/qt-licensing https://www.qt.io/qt-licensing https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-lgpl-license/ https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-lgp... >And everytime I end up confused about it. I think this is the point. If you're making a real application you may pay for the licensing to avoid the uncertainty/risk.

michaelsbradley 1y ago

It’s LGPL mostly, with some non-core libraries that are GPL or use other licenses: https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/licensing.html https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/licensing.html Over the years it has been noted by many that Qt’s wording and warnings about the LGPL amount to spreading FUD or outright misinformation in what seems like an attempt to scare managers and C-suite folks into buying commercial licenses “just in case”.

bradfa 1y ago

Qt (the company) releases MOST of their code under open source licenses, but not all. Qt4 was LGPLv2.1, Qt5 and beyond are under LGPLv3. In every major Qt release, there's a handful of super useful but kind of niche widgets which aren't released under open source licenses, presumably as a sales tactic as buying licenses gets you these widgets and sometimes that is cheaper than building them yourself, but unless you need these, you probably don't care about this. Although my experience attempting to buy licenses from Qt is about a decade out of date now, the way it roughly worked was you paid a per-seat-per-year fee to get a developer license or build-machine license. Then you bought bundles of deployment licenses, and the bigger the bundle then the lower the cost per license. If you are buying a bundle of a few thousand devices then you pay more per license than if you're buying a bundle of a few million. Either way, it is a significant chunk of cash you have to front to get your block of licenses and normally embedded projects are EXTREMELY sensitive to per-unit costs.

seba_dos1 1y ago

Nothing's wrong with their licensing model, but they've been known for misrepresenting their licensing model in order to steer people towards their commercial offerings.

bobmcnamara 1y ago

> And every time I google and try understand what is wrong with the licensing model. And everytime I end up confused about it. Could you kindly ELI5 me what is wrong with QT licensing model? This right here! We customers and users alike are often confused by QTs piecemeal licensing model.

freedomben 1y ago
I could be misunderstanding, but my read of the GP is that they aren't confused about the licensing model, they're confused by the hate for it

linhns 1y ago

Because it’s unclear and incomplete. Always prone to some KDE whims.

Macha 1y ago
KDE is an independent project from Qt and the only say they have is they have the right to release Qt under a BSD license if Qt Group removes the GPL option ( https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation/ https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation/ )
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

rcxdude 1y ago

A big one that I've heard, is that they are funny about you developing with it under an open source license and then buying a commercial license. I.e. if you would potentially want to use something that's under the commercial license then you need to buy it when you start development instead of when you find you want the commercial side. I don't know if this is still the case, though.

pjmlp 1y ago

Some people don't like to pay for the work of others, while expecting to be paid for their own work. Qt licensing is rather easy to understand. Don't want to pay Qt? Then get the same money yourself, zero. Want to get paid while selling a product based on Qt? Give something to Qt.