On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Lorn Potter <lpot...@trolltech.com> wrote: > Bruce Stephens wrote:
>> 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. > > We are still selling Qt as a multi licensed software, we still sell > commercial licenses to those > companies and people that want to keep their code closed. Ah, good point. Some companies will prefer a commercial license to LGPL. > At the same time, we are offering support as a separate offering, so Nokia > can now also make money > from selling GPL, LGPL users support. True, while removing some licenses from companies who can live with LGPL, you may well gain some support money from such companies. For all I know that's an overall increase in revenue. > As well, it removes restrictions for being able to use community > contributions. I don't get that. Surely it means contributions need to be licenseable in an extra license (LGPL) in addition to the commercial license and GPL, so it's an extra restriction (though a minor one)? In any case, your first comment makes sense: quite likely it's a commercial win for Nokia, or at least not as much of a loss as it might appear at first glance. _______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
