On 28/01/2020 10.55, NIkolai Marchenko wrote: >> Won't someone please step up and do it for us?" > > Which is why I don't understand how the proposed model is supposed to help > TQtC and the community. > A lot of stuff they are dropping for opensource users will simply move to > less trusted and perhaps less stable sources but will still be perfectly > available which means the "lure" of the new commercial license is > completely moot for overwhelming majority of developers. The moment those > less trusted sources will turn out actually being malicious the backlash > will hit Qt as a whole.
Alternatively, one preferred, *trusted* alternate source emerges and becomes the next LibreOffice. ***Fantastic*** news for the community. Still not so good for TQtC. (I'm trying to decide, in context, whether to laugh at calling TQtC "trusted"...) > Instead of doing what they are doing, they should rethink the cost of their > low/mid tier licenses to encourage wider adoption and seek crowdfunding. I agree... somewhat. Where I disagree is that I would go even further and suggest rethinking their entire business model. Maybe look at companies with a strong and successful open source story. (Say, isn't there one of those behind CMake?) -- Matthew (Opinions expressed in this message are my own, and do not reflect those of my employer.) _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development