On Monday, 19 February 2018 03:26:16 PST Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> > Open source usage of Qt is free as in “free speech”. As a Free Software
> > user you contribute or “pay” to our open source project by making your
> > code available to others – ensuring the end-users’ rights.
> This would clearly make everyone think that if they use Qt under LGPL
> they cannot develop a closed source software.

This is how you "pay". But you don't have to do it in the first place, it's 

The only thing weird here is "ensuring the end-users' rights".

> Also in the same page qmake, Qt Creator and Qt Designer are listed as
> "limited to GPL only".
> This make people think they cannot use any Qt tools if they use Qt
> under LGPL license.

That's just a misinterpretation. There's nothing factually wrong with the 

> I have also heard The Qt Company employees, while giving a speech
> about "choosing the right" license, say that
> the Open Source license is for people who want to share their code...

Nothing wrong with that. I actually fully support it. You should choose the 
open source licence for open source code and you should buy the commercial 
licence for closed-source.

But "should" is not the same as "is required to".

> I do understand that The Qt Company is doing most of the work on Qt
> and they need money, so they need to sell licenses.
> But I do not understand this urge to be dishonest. I do feel that they

Nothing you pointed out is dishonest. It's factually correct and suggests that 
you should pay for your use of Qt in some way. The effort of hundreds of 
people does not come cheap. You really want your frameworks to continue to 
exist, which means this needs to be win-win.

One way of doing that is by contributing to the Qt Project. Another is buying 
licences and support. Another is hiring consulting companies that do invest in 
Qt. Finally, you can also contribute by making your source code open so others 
can see it.

> want to scare new developers and force them to buy a license.
> I also have the feeling, that since all Qt websites are under qt.io,
> it is harder and harder to find clear information about Qt Open Source
> nature.

That is true.

> How can we expect new developers to go for Qt and QML, when they have
> to face (L)GPL vs MIT license issues ?

Because of the quality of the code and the results.

> If they don't dig, they will meet all the communication of The Qt
> Company explaining that the NEED to buy a license.
> If they dig deeper, they will start to find mainly "ask your lawyer"
> type of answers.
> And so they will not buy a license, they will not ask their lawyer.
> They will save thousands of euros on the license price or lawyer fees,
> they will
> save weeks of waiting for the lawyer response. They will just go with
> the MIT license option and use Electron, NodeJS and other JS toys.


Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

Interest mailing list

Reply via email to