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

[mSparks]

In neither case is Qt shipped as closed source.

so everyone using Qt charts has to abide by the GPL?

[anda_skoa]

so everyone using Qt charts has to abide by the GPL?

If that is the license you've chosen than those are the terms you have to comply with.

Just like for any other GPL licensed software component you are using.

Regardless of chosen license you'll always have the code of Qt and can make changes.
As I wrote before in a reply to qarium this is a main advantage of Qt over any closed source library

[mSparks]

If that is the license you've chosen than those are the terms you have to comply with.

Just like for any other GPL licensed software component you are using.

Regardless of chosen license you'll always have the code of Qt and can make changes.
As I wrote before in a reply to qarium this is a main advantage of Qt over any closed source library

afaics the qt terms say qt charts is available as a commercial licence or a GPL licence.

what is this open source commercial licence you refer to?

they say

Qt Commercial License users are not required to comply with Open-Source terms and conditions. For example, Commercial License users have full freedom to manage their own intellectual property (IP).

Commercial Licenses give access to a series of extra benefits that substantially help customers in their journey.

so based on that, and what Nth_man just said, Qt should all be bsd licenced now.

[Nth_man]

Anyone can use Qt, study it, modify it, adapt it, distribute it, etc. If that changed in new versions, "a timeframe of not more than 12 months" exists. Customers can pay and not share their own source code (even if that source code uses Qt).

> rene wrote [...]

Qt and KDE Plasma works fine, in fact I'm writing this using it. Anyone can see it for himself downloading a Kubuntu 24.04 .iso (https://kubuntu.org/getkubuntu/) and booting from it (or using it on a virtual machine).

[anda_skoa]

afaics the qt terms say qt charts is available as a commercial licence or a GPL licence.

Exactly, as I had mentioned several posts ago.

what is this open source commercial licence you refer to?

The terms of the Qt commercial license grant not just access to the code but also the rights to make changes and distribute those as part of your products.
A major advantage over any potential competitor with a closed source license.

so based on that, and what Nth_man just said, Qt should all be bsd licenced now.

So far every release of Qt under its commercial license has also seen a release under a free software license.
In most cases it is just the same release, from the same tag in GIT, just uploaded to different download portals

[mSparks]

Exactly, as I had mentioned several posts ago.

No, you said LGPL, that's entirely safe to use with closed source software as is.
GPL licenced software is an entirely different ball game.

but also the rights to make changes and distribute those as part of your products.

GPL requires the source for those changes AND the source for the products to be made publicly available. Anything else is closed source.
Basically what you are saying is according to what Nth_man said, we can now treat Qt as BSD licenced.

[anda_skoa]

No, you said LGPL,

I wrote "Free Software licenses such as LGPL" as that is the most popular license option.
Qt is also licensed under GPL v2 and GPL v3.

that's entirely safe to use with closed source software as is.

And safe to use with most open source software, unless the other license has been specifically designed to be incompatible.

GPL licenced software is an entirely different ball game.

Qt is also available with two versions of the GPL, see above.

GPL requires the source for those changes AND the source for the products to be made publicly available.

To the recipient of the software. GPL section 3a.

Alternatively, section 3b allows you to include a written offer to make it available on request, to any third party.

Anything else is closed source.

With closed source you don't get sources.
In the rare cases you do, e.g. you are a government and got access to sources of software that is normally closed source, you are not allowed to change them and distribute the software built from that.

Basically what you are saying is according to what Nth_man said, we can now treat Qt as BSD licenced.

That would require Qt not having been released as open source for more than 12 months.
That has never happened so far as each version is released, usually simultaniously, under several open software licenses.

[mSparks]

Qt is also licensed under GPL v2 and GPL v3.

And always will be because both are unrevokable. whats your point?

With closed source you don't get sources.

With closed source you dont share source code, no one cares if the developer had the source or not, probably 99.99999% of gpl software in use was not compiled by the user.

[qarium]

Basically what you are saying is according to what Nth_man said, we can now treat Qt as BSD licenced.

if it would be BSD licenced then you could make it closed source for free.

it is not BSD licenced because you have to pay money for the Qt commercial license

so its only be able to make it closed source for people who pay money.

[mSparks]

if it would be BSD licenced then you could make it closed source for free.

it is not BSD licenced because you have to pay money for the Qt commercial license

so its only be able to make it closed source for people who pay money.

I'm siding more with that agreement not being worth shit.

Because Qt is closed source, its not BSD licenced, and the only people that could make it bsd are the ones selling the closed source licence.