Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qt Updates Its Online Installer To Clarify Open-Source Obligations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Qt Updates Its Online Installer To Clarify Open-Source Obligations

    Phoronix: Qt Updates Its Online Installer To Clarify Open-Source Obligations

    Following yesterday's release of Qt 5.15 LTS as the last series before Qt 6.0, The Qt Company has now released a new Qt Online Installer...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ller-Clarified

  • #2
    This is getting ridiculous...

    So LGPL code usage obligates you to make "open" hardware devices, absent any actual definition what this even means...

    If "develop" my code with notepad, and notepad is proprietary, does this mean I cannot use Qt open source?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ddriver View Post
      So LGPL code usage obligates you to make "open" hardware devices, absent any actual definition what this even means...
      You can read GPLv3 license. It contains a proper definition. In fact the whole point of GPLv3 was antitivoization.

      Comment


      • #4
        Clearly they want to steer people away from the Free versions.

        Comment


        • #5
          > Clearly they want to steer people away from the Free versions.

          Those are difficult times, yesterday "Latam Airlines Filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection". To develop free libraries with that scope and features, money is needed to pay developers. That kind of concepts are a little strange to you, since you don't have a real job, and that's why you are able to come so soon to troll in every Qt/KDE thread.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
            Clearly they want to steer people away from the Free versions.
            Or, maybe, they want people to respect the GPL and LGPL licenses.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ddriver View Post
              So LGPL code usage obligates you to make "open" hardware devices, absent any actual definition what this even means...
              To my understanding, as LGPL require you to provide a re-linking mechanism, if you use Qt for an embedded software solution, it has to be "open" in a way that allows this re-linking.
              That has nothing to do with the device on which you develop, just where you deploy commercially.

              Comment


              • #8
                The usual commercial model for FLOSS software is that on-demand support is a chargeable service. If you don't mind support coming from mailing lists and forums where participants are not required to reply in limited timescales, or even at all, then you can get by by simply using the FLOSS software. On the other hand, if you are running a commercial enterprise that is dependant on the software, it is sensible to pay for on-demand support, whether it be by email, a restricted access forum, or 24x7 telephone hotline.

                Other models are available, including increasingly bizarre licensing conditions, but tend not to stand the test of time.

                It might be that Qt doesn't have 'critical mass', or is underappreciated by its commercial users. It would be a shame if this is true, but the graveyard of good ideas that didn't quite make it is large, and ever growing. The market is ruthless in culling uneconomic propositions.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yep.. people still have no idea what GPL means and we are in 2020.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Call me old-fashioned, but I'd say the key to success is improving your product into something more people are willing to use, which also increases the number of people that will make enough money on it to consider spending on a commercial license.

                    The "qt company" seems to be doing the exact opposite, it is that rare breed of bad architecture and bad management that stimulates people to either move away or stay away from having to deal with it.

                    Seems like the company is too cheap for its own good. m$ realized decades ago it is actually a good thing for people to use its software for free, and they built tremendous money making machine. Such desperate actions to milk every last drop aren't doing the company any favors. They appear desperate and unreliable.
                    Last edited by ddriver; 05-27-2020, 08:41 AM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X