Qt LTS Releases To Be Restricted To Commercial Customers, Other Commercial Changes

[240Hz]

So, what does this mean for KDE Plama and other open source programs that use Qt ?

It doesn't really mean anything. Hopefully an incentive to get more up to date QT versions

[onicsis]

Too bad . Can't be sure today about what's will happen tomorrow. Thinking on long term the answer right answer to Qt [or GTK] it's something else. From scratch

[NateHubbard]

Linux need a new, completely free (as in freedom) gui libs. Both the Qt libs and the Gtk+/- libs aren't. Maybe Linux (not the kernel) needs a full reboot. The gtk1 gui libs are the only good for a fork.

Aren't systemd and wayland already kind of a complete reboot, in the way you're describing?

[GdeR]

Oh wow.. the LTS were actually the only releases I was using.. I like the idea of lower priced licenses for small businesses though, because I'm one myself. Let's just hope costs won't be too high no matter the change, otherwise bye-bye Qt.

[tildearrow]

What happened to this?

[Guest]

Aren't systemd and wayland already kind of a complete reboot, in the way you're describing?

Wayland? A complete disaster.

[Hibbelharry]

Really? The GTK are buggy-designed gui libs.

Bullcrap. And I won't ask for context, that will just end in something not enlightening anyone.

Linux need a new, completely free (as in freedom) gui libs. Both the Qt libs and the Gtk+/- libs aren't. Maybe Linux (not the kernel) needs a full reboot. The gtk1 gui libs are the only good for a fork.

Feel free after you wrote that new browser you wanted to do.

Aren't systemd and wayland already kind of a complete reboot, in the way you're describing?

Yes, they are. And funnily he hates them

[CommunityMember]

Urgh, I hope this will not impact security on Linux too hard. Does the license allow e.g. the kde project to distribute their own LTS version with backported fixes, so all distributions can pull from it?

Anyone will be still be able to pull source patches and backport them (the source remains open), and distribute them as permitted under the current license, but clearly that means that that project now becomes the maintainer for that specific variant (and the arbiter of what patches to backport, rather than the Qt company itself), which may, or may not, be a task they are currently resourced to perform (some orgs/companies already do that (or something similar) for their customers, but it will be a new consideration moving forward for some others). Eliminating the direct download of LTS bundles for non-customers does not impact those individuals or projects that are constantly moving forward to new releases, just those that had planned to depend on the work of the Qt company for free. One benefit claimed by the Qt company is that it may encourage some projects to actually move forward more rapidly (rather than languish with obsolete capabilities), or could result in more orgs becoming paying customers for the work that Qt is doing to support their choices to stick with the old. I guess we will see how things break out.

[Guest]

Too bad . Can't be sure today about what's will happen tomorrow. Thinking on long term the answer right answer to Qt [or GTK] it's something else. From scratch

I agree. From someone or a nonprofit organization, but free from everyone else. If not, the life path of the new libs will be the same as... you-know-who .

[Danny3]

It doesn't really mean anything. Hopefully an incentive to get more up to date QT versions

Then it's OK.
More up to date QT version would be very nice, especially on Kubuntu which seems to be very late on this.