Then I'd say Qt was not suitable for "open governance" and "open development". Or not ready for it.
It's a funny situation right now. I can use Qt like an open project, but am not allowed to contribute to it in an open manner. In a sense, you must contribute more than you get. That is unfair. On 19/04/12 00:10, BRM wrote: > As pointed out, the main reason Qt Commercial customers buys the commercial > license is to not to have to worry about some of the LGPL requirements - > namely the ability to static link. > Where I presently work has a commercial license. We static link a lot of > things. Could we dynamically link? Probably. > We don't modify Qt itself (though we could); but we primarily don't want to > have to worry about the LGPL requirements either (e.g. providing object files > that can be relinked, etc.) - the company is too small to try to keep track > of all of that, nor are our customers really interested in it. > > So there are very big concerns that the Qt Commercial License alleviates. > > Ben > > >> ________________________________ >> From: Nikos Chantziaras<rea...@gmail.com> >> To: interest@qt-project.org >> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 4:05 PM >> Subject: Re: [Interest] Contributor agreement rundown >> >> Again, that's not my issue. LGPL allows commercial exploitation of the >> code. The issue is taking open code and closing it, not allowing me >> anymore to see how it was modified. Being commercial has nothing to do >> with this. >> >> >> On 18/04/12 22:10, Jason H wrote: >>> Really It's a question of comparative greed. If you don't want your >>> source in the commercial arena, where people can make money off of you, >>> well what's the value of that as compared to the value of the code that >>> you get for free, as well as the value you get by those commercial >>> interests testing the code for you. >>> >>> Really the commercial interests (and this is a generalization) use the >>> commercial license to buy support. Their main concern is in having Qt >>> work, while not divulging their "competitive advantages" which has >>> nothing to do with the Qt toolkit (unless you count Qt as a whole). I've >>> worked at several (4) companies that used Qt and some commercially >>> licensed Qt (3), and it wasn't about withholding patches or profiting >>> from your code. In all cases it was getting our existing code to work >>> with a GUI, and not having to publish our source. (Now moot due to LGPL) >>> >>> Give some, get a lot. >>> >>> >>> *From:* Girish Ramakrishnan<gir...@forwardbias.in> >>> *To:* Bo Thorsen<b...@fioniasoftware.dk> >>> *Cc:* interest@qt-project.org >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:46 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [Interest] Contributor agreement rundown >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Bo Thorsen<b...@fioniasoftware.dk >>> <mailto:b...@fioniasoftware.dk>> wrote: >>> > Den 18-04-2012 10:33, John Layt skrev: >>> >> It is a trade-off, but not entirely one-way. They get to sell your >>> code, but >>> >> the money raised goes towards supporting Qt. >>> > >>> > Actually, I see this more as a "yes, you can buy commercial support". >>> It >>> > closes one of the objections my customers have. Of course, I usually >>> > convince them that I'm all the support they need :) But it is a >>> question >>> > I've heard so often with OSS software, and it's one of the things >>> > non-OSS people are concerned about. >>> > >>> > It doesn't look like Digia is using this to fund a lot of new Qt >>> > development, but if they use it to support older Qt versions, this is >>> a >>> > great thing as well (assuming those patches go to the OSS Qt). People >>> > paid on OSS projects should do the boring parts :) >>> >>> A quick update from qt-project: Digia may not be contributing a lot to >>> new development (yet) but they have been contributing quite a bit (a >>> quick grep shows ~1500 patches with them as author) to Qt4 and they >>> have been doing a great job so far. >>> _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
