Still, it reads like the Instagram influencer argument: "Give me free stuff and I'll get you exposure.", and we all know how silly that sounds like.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 6:17 AM Tuukka Turunen <tuukka.turu...@qt.io> wrote: > > > “This is wrong to say that the only alternative to Commercial + GPLv3 is > Commercial only.” > > > > I did not say the _*only*_ alternative. Some new things are LGPL exactly > to grow the user base. Qt for Python being one of such. > > > > Yours, > > > > Tuukka > > > > *From: *Benjamin TERRIER <b.terr...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 22.18 > *To: *Tuukka Turunen <tuukka.turu...@qt.io> > *Cc: *qt qt <interest@qt-project.org> > *Subject: *Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy > > > > > > > > Le mer. 14 août 2019 à 20:36, Tuukka Turunen <tuukka.turu...@qt.io> a > écrit : > > > > Hi, > > > > Qt’s approach to open-source is publicly described, but perhaps a bit > hidden, check for example: > > · Section 3 of https://www.qt.io/faq/ > > · https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Project_Open_Governance > > · https://www.qt.io/licensing/ > > > > These pages are just presenting the current licensing options. > > They do not cover how The Qt Company view the licensing of future Qt > modules. > > > > We have been releasing new add-on modules under GPLv3 and commercial > licenses with intention of growing the adoption of commercial license for > those making closed-source applications with Qt. Alternative for using > GPLv3 and commercial would be to only offer these add-ons separately under > a commercial license, which would mean not even those who are ok with GPLv3 > license could use these add-ons. Some of such components do exist, but most > of our code is available under an open-source license as well. > > > > This is wrong to say that the only alternative to Commercial + GPLv3 is > Commercial only. > > The new add-ons modules could be provided as GPLv3 + GPLv2 + LGPLv3. > > I understand the will to grow "the adoption of commercial license", but I > believe that some modules which have a lot of alternatives available could > be licensed also under GPLv2 and/or LPGLv3 without going against "the > adoption of commercial license". > > Also having more module on LGPL can grow the Qt community leading to > indirect sales of the commercial license. > > > > For instance when I work on GPLv3 projects I can use all Qt add-ons, but > when I work on GPLv2 or LGPLv3 project I cannot use the most recent Qt > modules. > > Which means that I have to find an alternative anyway. In the end I do not > use these Qt add-ons, even for the GPLv3 projects as I have an alternative > ready. > > > > At the same time we have developed a lot of new functionality, done a lot > of improvements, and fixed a lot of bugs in functionality available also > with LGPL license. This is a big investment, which directly benefits all Qt > users whether they distribute their applications under LGPL, GPL or > commercial license. Just look at the amount of new and changed code and you > can see that the LGPLv3 parts are clearly not some legacy functionality, > but very actively developed areas of Qt. > > > > I am not denying that. > > It is just that all the novelties are GPLv3 only and I think it should be > made clear to the community that new LGPL modules are not to be expected. > > > > BR > > > > Benjamin > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest >
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest