> Just because it seems like a good price for you doesn't mean it's a good > price. Reducing the licence price to one tenth what it is today could mean the > revenues for the company reduce to one tenth too, which means the development > team might need to reduce to around one tenth what it is. For a licence one > tenth what it is today, you have to prove that sales would be ten times bigger > or more. Do you have such proof?
Let's be clear, here all people are just telling their own opinions (you too) and i'm not pretending to be correct. I've no proof but: first, the offer announced here is of 499$ thus not very different from the one i've stated, second i've pointed out another example (JetBrains tools) for a product used by developers with a reasonable price. Just to be clear i work for a company that pay for a commercial license thus i somewhat know the price. > > You have absolutely no information on how elastic the Qt commercial price is, > so kindly don't speculate on what price would be good. The only entity that is > close to having that information is the one doing Qt sales in the first place > and even then I don't know they know very well. I'm not a TQC sales guy (nor you) but i know that sales guys know exactly the income and state of the company that owns a commercial license. Thus they should have a good picture of their commercial customers. The problem is that a lot of developers that use the LGPL license currently cannot afford a commercial license. Those users are wasted money that could benefit the TQC. > > > Furthermore i think that current LGPL users could be more > > willing to buy a commercial company once a good price for them is available > > (at that point i would simply turn Qt dual licensing GPL or Commerical > > period). > > No, they aren't. Just see that someone else posted on this thread that they > were paying for a year and then decided to stop doing so because they weren't > using the licence or support. That's the big issue: why keep paying for > something you're also getting for free? Companies don't pay out of the > goodness of their hearts. Maybe you didn't get it but i meant to both put a reasonable price for a commercial license (500$) and turning everything GPL or commercial. Making everything GPL forces all LGPL to buy a commercial license. This obviously could turn away some people but only if there isn't a proper offer for the commercial license. I would borrow ideas also from other frameworks (Unreal engine) and trigger license payment only when gross revenues exceed a threshold. Honestly the QTC is fighting itself with LGPL users and on every release something is added or turned GPL. IMHO i would turn everything GPL or commercial. > > > Another point is that a great framework like Qt need some big investors > > that are willing to use Qt for their ecosystem. We don't have big > > informations onthis > > area but maybe the partnership with LG or with one or more company in the > > automotive field can give a stable flow of cash. > > What makes you think that the automotive field isn't exactly the worst field, > using Qt in a large set of devices and not contributing code nor paying for > commercial? I don't know if it's the worst or the best field but i know that it's a field with big companies. I said that a collaboration with a big company could go beyond a simple payment of a license. Furthermore Qt licensing is also per device in the embedded field. > And how do you convince them to pay more? You have to give them something they > want and wouldn't otherwise get for free. Turning everything GPL is a good convincement. > Like a release supported for a big > number of years. At least for the automotive industry, allergic to the > (L)GPLv3 as it is, there's one other: the incentive of a licence that doesn't > have the TiVo clause. Agree > > > In conclusion a 400 euro per developer/year is a nice spot for converting > > most LGPL users to Commercial. > > Conclusion based on opinion, not data. Sorry, this is not how it works. I'm talking for myself. I wouldn't pay more that $600 yearly (per dev). Again the announced offer (500$) is not very different from my conclusion. -- Filippo Cucchetto Il giorno mer 29 gen 2020 alle ore 23:37 Konstantin Shegunov <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:22 AM Matthew Woehlke <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Aside from issues with Patreon's reputation > > > I was not aware of such, but I'm going to take your word for it. > >> >> Besides, I was thinking more along the lines of something that could >> integrate with other OSS tools (e.g. GitHub). > > > Fair enough. > >> >> I want a "proud sponsors" page. I want to be able to offer bounties for >> specific bugs or feature requests. > > > I believe everybody would welcome that. > On that note, just a wild idea, paying per module (i.e. 50$ / year for QtCore > + 50$ / year for GUI, etc.) could be more flexible scheme to license. Not > sure how that aligns with QtC's sales people, but seems more fair to me to > pay for what you use (and by extension support its development). > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:26 AM NIkolai Marchenko <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> I personally want a goal oriented fundraiser model. Like "revamp qtwidgets", >> "do a round of serious bugfixes in qml" etc > > > That also seems fine to me. > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development -- Filippo Cucchetto _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
