GNOME Took In $556k Last Year While Spending $675.9k

[qarium]

I obviously meant license agreement.
That KDE has one. They don't.

KDE does not exist in a vacuum they only exist in combination of QT...

if you support KDE then you support QT... and CLA-war (you want the second word written in small leters lol)
is their business model.

And how on Earth is that related to CLA-WAR?
Since CLA is a three letter acronym, WAR must be one as well.
Otherwise you would have written CLA-war.
How would entities like Microsoft do that?
Even if they use Qt for whatever application they would not be "stealing" any intellectual property of open-source developers.
Same for KDE.
Most of their contributors choose a Copyleft license such as GPL or LGPL for their code.
BSD or MIT licenses are accepted as far as I know, but rarely chosen because most developers want changes to be made public as well.

if you sign a CLA then it does not matter what license you chose they can turn it into closed source.

[mSparks]

That KDE has one. They don't.

They do, its linked in my post immediately before yours.

[anda_skoa]

KDE does not exist in a vacuum they only exist in combination of QT...

Doesn't change the fact that KDE does not have a CLA.

Code contributions to KDE can be under a wide range of licenses and most developers chose Copyleft one such as GPL or LGPL.

if you sign a CLA then it does not matter what license you chose they can turn it into closed source.

One of the main selling points of Qt, even for their commercial customers, is that it always comes with the source and with the express permission to make changes and distribute those. Very different to a closed source software for which this is neither possible nor allowed.

It is also important to remember that the are legally required to release the FOSS version no later than 12 months after any release for their commercial license customers.
Which in most cases means it is the same release for everyone.

[anda_skoa]

They do, its linked in my post immediately before yours.

You linked to the Qt CLA (that is even in the document's name) and an outdate one at that.

Acceptable licenses for contributions to KDE are listed here

[mSparks]

You linked to the Qt CLA (that is even in the document's name) and an outdate one at that.

Acceptable licenses for contributions to KDE are listed here

Still, explains why Qt, and by extension KDE is such a steaming pile of rotten zombie flesh. No one with any degree of competence is going to contribute to that unless they are getting paid the big bucks.

[anda_skoa]

they are getting paid the big bucks.

One of the advantages of using Qt is indeed that quite a lot of developers are being paid to work on it.

Aside from the employees of the Qt company also employees of several other companies which use Qt in their products or which have customers using Qt.

The the latter two options are possible because Qt's code is easily available via GIT

[qarium]

Still, explains why Qt, and by extension KDE is such a steaming pile of rotten zombie flesh. No one with any degree of competence is going to contribute to that unless they are getting paid the big bucks.

at this point you are very right expert developers with any sanity will avoid CLA-WAR and QT...

just watch the youtube video of rene he did compile KDE/QT and gnome the newest version of both and he comes to the conclusion that KDE/QT is bullcrap..

[Nth_man]

at this point you are very right expert developers with any sanity will avoid CLA-WAR and QT...

One of the main reason the CLA is needed is due to the agreement with the Free-Qt Foundation, that says that if Qt is ever closed sourced, or stops being maintained, the last released versions becomes available under a BSD license. It wouldn't be possible to do that re-licensing without the CLA.
-- From what Carewolf wrote on https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/latest-phoronix-articles/945770-qt-5-10-release-planned-for-the-end-of-november-no-qt-5-8-1-planned?p=945873#post945873

[mSparks]

One of the main reason the CLA is needed is due to the agreement with the Free-Qt Foundation, that says that if Qt is ever closed sourced, or stops being maintained, the last released versions becomes available under a BSD license. It wouldn't be possible to do that re-licensing without the CLA.
-- From what Carewolf wrote on https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/latest-phoronix-articles/945770-qt-5-10-release-planned-for-the-end-of-november-no-qt-5-8-1-planned?p=945873#post945873

So much for that agreement, Qt is already shipping closed source commercial versions

https://www.qt.io/terms-conditions

[anda_skoa]

Qt is already shipping closed source commercial versions

Qt is available under several licenses.
One is the commercial, another are Free Software licenses such as LGPL.

In neither case is Qt shipped as closed source.