> > >> most of the commercial licensees are sticking with the commercial > license > > because of the ambiguity > >> with the LGPL and how to apply it; and the fact that while Nokia did do > > that, they have not provided any > >> clarity to its use. > > > > ... while developers of proprietary software, which are not commercial > > licensees, use LGPL license :) > > > > Some may yes, but I think the general ambiguity left by the LGPL > requirements still pushes most towards commercial licenses. > So I don't think it has really changed anything in terms of business. > > I could be wrong - only someone familiar with the various deals within > Nokia/Digia could really answer that, but that won't likely happen. > > Ben
Agree with Ben, we're in a similar position: Commercial licensee, LGPL requirements sufficiently ambiguous with "unquantified-risk" that purchasing the "commercial-license" is "cheap-insurance". For us, the "Unquantified-risk" relates to (1) LGPL compliance under various scenarios, and (2) incremental costs associated with configuration-control of the product(s). Those are likely "resolvable", and probably not-a-big-deal. But, addressing them is not free (it will cost something.) For example, we have added concern for "configuration-control": Embedded medical devices, we need to maintain factory/manufacturer-control of the user-configuration. FDA and other process-related validation protocols make user-replacing of LGPL binaries problematic. We could probably figure it out, but it would cost, including updates to the IFU (Instructions For Use), user-access to our embedded configuration, additional validation/verification protocols, etc. There's a possible "explosion" in factory-supported configurations as a result (most customers have ongoing service contracts). As an aside, though: *- IMHO Digia has been quite responsive/responsible as a vendor *- IMHO Digia has had positive impact for both the commercial and open-source Qt libraries *- IMHO it's good to "provide cash" to support the Qt communities, as this visibly manifests in development, servers, new Tier-1 platforms, CI, bug-fixes, future versions, and an ever-improving Qt quality We are the Qt-community -- all of us. People gotta eat, and somebody needs to run the servers, and somebody needs to do the "not-fun" stuff to keep the code alive. I think it's great that we have KDAB, ICS, and other vendors supporting Qt, and IMHO Digia also adds value to the community with their Commercial-license offering. And, the presence of "Digia's-Commercial-License" takes nothing "away" from the community: We're looking at outsourcing some Qt-related work, and all of those vendors are on-the-table for consideration (and others, including smaller Qt-specific contract-houses). Similarly: If I had the cash, I'd bankroll the Brisbane kids for the great work they were doing down there (Qt 3D, CI servers, etc.) I see "value" in what they were doing, which is why I think it's ok to send cash to where value is being created, no-matter what we want to "name" that "cash-transfer" (e.g., "license", "consulting", "support", "tip-jar", etc.) Yes, of course, if Digia someday became "evil" or no longer delivered value, then we would re-visit our Commercial license purchase. But, from what I've seen thus far, I see nothing that concerns me (quite the opposite). Quite the contrary: We recently *renewed* our Commercial licenses because we see Digia's active role at this current time as a "stabilizing-activity" for the Qt community -- the *whole* community. (Our licenses were otherwise not set to expire for months.). Digia recently announced targeting "Tier-1" explicitly for iOS, Android, and Win8 ... This is great stuff!! For the *whole* community, not just Commercial-licensees! Who doesn't want that? ;-)) --charley
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
