On 28/01/2020 11.37, Volker Hilsheimer wrote: > The Qt Company is a public company
...well, that may not be helping. How many of the shareholders both care about the community and are sufficiently involved to make those feelings known? > Given how significant the Qt Company contribution to Qt is, making it > a sustainable business should be in the interest of anyone that wants > to see Qt continue to be a successful and evolving technology. I agree that having *a* successful company as the major backer of Qt is desirable. However, recent actions have caused some to wonder if TQtC, at least as it is currently being managed, is the best company for that role, or how long it will be able to continue in that role. Hostile forks can and do happen, and sometimes end up killing the parent. > Making backporting of fixes to old branches a commercial-only > service is an attempt to encourage more companies that are basing > their business on Qt-based software to contribute with funding. I won't comment (at length) on this. I think there *may* be some merit to this position, but having it "kick in" right at the Qt5 → Qt6 transition... complicates things. If this had taken effect instead with the first Qt6 LTS, I suspect the reaction would have been much less energetic. As others have already noted, there *must* and *will be* an open source LTS of some nature, just like there *already is* for Qt4. What remains to be seen is how much the open source version will share with the commercial version. > Should we turn the Qt Company into a business for which Qt becomes a > secondary priority, and where we develop Qt only as a means to an > end (which would be the kitware business model)? I really don’t think > that would serve Qt very well. Are you arguing that it *hasn't* worked well for CMake (or VTK, or ...)? Are you arguing that Kitware doesn't care about their community? If you look at Kitware's mission statement¹: Advance the frontiers of understanding by developing innovative open source software platforms and integrating them into research, processes, and products. ..."developing [...] software platforms" is *right there*, and it's not just any software, either, but "*open source* software" (emphasis added). I'm unclear why you think that adopting "the Kitware business model" results in "Qt becom[ing] a secondary priority". Conversely, there seems to be some question about TQtC's *current* priorities. (¹ kitware.com/about/) > What kind of change do you think would give companies a really good > reason to buy a license, without at the same time hurting the > community? Some other folk have also commented, so I'll spare any laymen's WAGs here... aside from one thing. Your phrasing alone implies two problems; first, that licensing is the only possible revenue model, and second that licensing it at odds with the needs of the community. As a counterpoint, I'd like to point you to the sales page where you can purchase CMake licenses: <this space intentionally left blank> There are none! Kitware (TTBOMK) *doesn't sell licenses*; indeed, most (all?) of Kitware's open source software is available under BSD or similar terms (MIT, APL, etc.). Once upon a time, Qt was just about the only game in town, at least if you wanted something that C++ and wasn't garbage (*cough*GTK*cough*). These days, it's competing with a half dozen or more tool kits, all of which are *free* (as in beer). Over and over I hear people talking about how that startup cost drives them *away* from Qt. (Note also Richard's reply.) Of course, TANSTAAFL, and *that* is where Kitware makes money... by standing there waiting to realize that "free" means either a) build it yourself (and hopefully give your changes back to the community), b) file feature requests and hope, or c) pay someone else to do it... and who would you rather pay? The junior developer you just hired that barely knows what he's doing? Some overpriced fly-by-night consulting company that will leave you high and dry at the first opportunity? How about the folks that wrote the software stack in the first place and part of a healthy open source community? Kitware sells *services*, not licenses. Support service, feature development service, even application development service... and it seems to be working. As much as possible, all of that work is open source and directly benefits to the community. Even people that use CMake / VTK / etc. without giving back are benefiting the community simply by increasing adoption, which is a battle Qt seems to be losing right now. I will, however, make one more specific suggestion. There's a bunch of ways to up-sell support contracts or even other engineering services, but one I would focus on (with the customers' permission, of course) is *publicity*. When someone buys a support contract, spend some effort talking about the great work they are doing by helping to support the Qt ecosystem. Ensure that, even if they never end up *needing* support, they're getting some return for their money in the form of positive publicity. -- 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
