New Qt Releases Might Now Be Restricted To Paying Customers For 12 Months

[oleid]

The fixes will be as are now, 6.0.1, 6.0.2, that's mean it cannot hide, when the code is released you cannot hide it again, it's clear now? They don't mean
6.0.1 - 12 months delay
6.0.2 - 12 months delay
....
6.1 - 5 years later
That's not make any sense to do it, no one is interesting to do that.

They cannot hide 6.0.0, but they could hide 6.0.1 as that is not released yet. Please note, there won't be 12 months between 6.0.0 and 6.0.1. Just how long it took to release the minor update.

[Volta]

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in that statement? If the death of the Qt Company means the death of Qt as a viable Open Source toolkit, that simply means that the volunteers aren't enough, meaning they aren't making it harder on themselves – as long as it actually works and they can make it more lucrative to pay for Qt.

But less commits from Open Source means more funds needed to pay for development. Let's say volunteer commits were 1/20 of all, so it's 1/20 the Qt company will have to pay now or they will loose some of the development performance.

[jo-erlend]

But less commits from Open Source means more funds needed to pay for development. Let's say volunteer commits were 1/20 of all, so it's 1/20 the Qt company will have to pay now or they will loose some of the development performance.

Yes, but that is assuming that losing money on the market collapse is voluntary, which it isn't.

[oiaohm]

As previously quoted, at least some members of the KDE project itself has stated they do *not* have the resources to fork and sustain Qt moving forward with their current resources (last I looked the lines of code in Qt is around 60% of the Linux kernel, and while lines of code is not a measurement of complexity, it is suggestive). Now, perhaps, with your talents they could do so, so please do let the KDE project know you are able to do that fork and make it a success, for that will give them some alternative paths forward rather than just hand wringing.

The reality here you are ignoring the history. In recent years there has not been the need for the companies that support KDE to put developers into extending/maintaining Qt. KDE use to have a lot of Qt extension libraries.

https://qtcon.org/sponsors

Also you are missing something critical. For lines of code the biggest developer of Qt is not "The Qt Company" it is in KDAB. In fact KDAB does have the resources to be able to pick up the complete Qt code base. KDAB is still a funding member of KDE.

Now lets say KDAB decided due to "The Qt Company" actions they decide to fork it so KDE can develop and that they can go after the "The Qt Company" client base.

Sorry "The Qt Company" location is not as good as it first seams. KDE does have the resources to fork Qt in it sponsors if "The Qt Company" is going to be jerk and cause problems time to be talking to KDAB in detail about very aggressive and profitable plan for KDAB that will come at the cost of "The Qt Company".

[angrypie]

Lulz, they're backpedaling: https://www.qt.io/blog/qt-and-open-source

[bug77]

There's also a possibility it's a hostile action toward Open Source, but one would have to check their finances to figure out. However, their move seems very stupid.

Well, it's not a "move" at this point. Just what some KDE guy says was discussed at some point. The brief statement Qt Company sent, seems to indicate there's no action plan. So far, at least.
I'm not too worried right now, I know there's no shortage of crappy idea that come up in project I work on. Most of them short-lived.

[DeepDayze]

Lulz, they're backpedaling: https://www.qt.io/blog/qt-and-open-source

Not much there of substance though...there should be a fuller response.