Carl Thompson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am not a Harmony developer, but I have been following its development
> with interest.
>
> Jo Dillon wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > Well, this is true, but any commercial company can afford Qt's charges.
> > I really don't think the Qt fees will deter companies from developing
> > for Linux. I personally have always seen this side of things as a rather
> > minor problem, and for that matter RMS said in discussions earlier
> > that a GPL'd Harmony would be perfectly acceptable, even though that
> > wouldn't allow commercial Harmony development at all.
>
> If TT's announcemment succeeds in killing of the Harmony and GNOME projects,
> whose to say that they won't dramatically raise the price of licensing QT
> for commercial applications after Linux becomes mainstream? Having a free
> competitor will keep them honest. If KDE becomes the desktop standard for
> Linux then commercial applications will probably need to be written as KDE
> applications. I think it goes against what Linux stands for if a developer
> is required to pay TT in order to develop commercially for Linux. With an
> LGPLed Harmony, all Linux development would be truly free.
>
> Just remember that if KDE becomes the standard Linux desktop, without
> Harmony we are giving TT a monopoly on a required library for commercial
> Linux development. It would really suck if we allowed one company to
> dictate the future of all future commercial Linux applications...
>
> Please keep developing Harmony!
>
> Thank you,
> Carl Thompson
I second that. I'll even help with the development if someone has a good idea
where I can get a reference on X and the Qt API.
