On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Bruce Stephens <bruce.r.steph...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Andrew Flegg <and...@bleb.org> wrote: > >> Am I missing something big? Please say I am :-) > > You're only missing that sometimes even for proprietary software, "no cost" > vs "reasonable cost" matters. Sometimes the GUI doesn't matter much, and > the license change means developers can consider Qt more easily than before.
Absolutely, and - as had been pointed out elsewhere - it may make it easier to write apps which are cross-platform between S60/Maemo where one is chargeable and one isn't (I consider this to be highly unlikely, TBH - but wait to be pleasantly surprised ;-)) > (That's probably less the case for Maemo, but generally it seems > likely to be so.) Agreed, I think it's less the case for Maemo. So I'm surprised Dave's surprised it hasn't made more of a splash here. Of course, it could've just been a figure of speech :-) > A more interesting (but likely speculative) question is why Nokia made > the change. > My guess is that internally they regard Qt commercial licensing as a > distraction from their main business, and (though it may be at some level > irrational) they prefer to exchange the income (and distraction) for the > positive publicity. Agreed. I can't believe that Qt licencing was sufficiently noticeable on Nokia's bottom line (even in these economic circumstances) to warrant it: a) being a factor in the purchasing decision; b) being worth a barrier to greater Qt usage. Cheers, andrew -- Andrew Flegg -- mailto:and...@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/ Maemo Community Council member _______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
