Why can't Qt license software just under the LGPL or GPL?
-
While the commercial and the GNU LGPL license options offer choice for businesses who want to use Qt libraries in their closed source products, I feel that, mostly with the commercial license, that this will lead to duplicated efforts in the future. If the Qt projects wants to add components that Felgo has, such as hot reloading QML, they won't be allowed to.
There are projects like Blender which use the GPL exclusively, and yet they are really successful.
If the concern is about funding, there are better business models than accepting donations. -
While the commercial and the GNU LGPL license options offer choice for businesses who want to use Qt libraries in their closed source products, I feel that, mostly with the commercial license, that this will lead to duplicated efforts in the future. If the Qt projects wants to add components that Felgo has, such as hot reloading QML, they won't be allowed to.
There are projects like Blender which use the GPL exclusively, and yet they are really successful.
If the concern is about funding, there are better business models than accepting donations.@ben-cottrell Not sure what problems exactly you see? Using GPL source code?
-
I think it's bad that Felgo and other companies can have custom versions of Qt and not have to give back their changes.
-
I think it's bad that Felgo and other companies can have custom versions of Qt and not have to give back their changes.
@ben-cottrell Actually LGPL requires that changes are published. Means: if someone uses LGPL Qt and changes something in Qt and publish his/her app he/she HAS to publish the changes applied to Qt. There is no need for GPL to cover this.
-
My OP was a bit dense, suffice it to say that I wish that Qt was completely free and open source while being mutually beneficial for users and contributors.
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
