On Tuesday, 14 April 2020 06:01:47 CEST Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > I agree it's possible that "we're thinking about restricting ALL Qt > releases to paid license holders for the first 12 months" was just to > force our hand and make us give them other concessions, and that > they're not actually planning to do it. > > But that's what the fork discussion is about. As Nate said, "we are > thinking of forking Qt" and having credible ability to do so, might > force *their* hand and make them take a step back. If then > negotiations go well, we don't need to actually fork. *Worst* case, > negotiations don't go well, and we have a head start on the forking > work.
I completely agree with this. Both "we will restrict releases for 12 months" and "we will fork Qt" are terrible decisions. But, I am in fact convinced that a potential KDE/KDAB/...-backed fork would quickly gain a *lot* of users and also contributors. I expect TQtC knows this as well. Planning how this fork could work out and saying "ok, if you do this, we do that" puts us in a position of power in this conflict, which makes it an important thing to do. Best, Sven