2018-02-19 18:52 GMT+01:00 Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com>: > On Monday, 19 February 2018 03:26:16 PST Benjamin TERRIER wrote: >> > Open source usage of Qt is free as in “free speech”. As a Free Software >> > user you contribute or “pay” to our open source project by making your >> > code available to others – ensuring the end-users’ rights. >> This would clearly make everyone think that if they use Qt under LGPL >> they cannot develop a closed source software. > > This is how you "pay". But you don't have to do it in the first place, it's > free. > > The only thing weird here is "ensuring the end-users' rights".
Maybe I should have quoted the text just above: "An obligation to share your Qt software code" I'd like to see how many new comers will understand this as "an obligation to share the modifications you have done to Qt" vs "an obligation to share your own code that uses Qt". >> Also in the same page qmake, Qt Creator and Qt Designer are listed as >> "limited to GPL only". >> This make people think they cannot use any Qt tools if they use Qt >> under LGPL license. > > That's just a misinterpretation. There's nothing factually wrong with the > statement. Agreed. But how many people will understand this as "the tools code itself is under GPL" vs "you cannot use the tools at all if you use Qt under LGPL"? How relevant is it to show a warning sign about the tools being under GPL? The same warning sign used to warn about GPL-only Qt modules furthermore. I am not sure a lot of Qt-newcomers first ask themselves about redistributing Qt Creator. >> I have also heard The Qt Company employees, while giving a speech >> about "choosing the right" license, say that >> the Open Source license is for people who want to share their code... > > Nothing wrong with that. I actually fully support it. You should choose the > open source licence for open source code and you should buy the commercial > licence for closed-source. > > But "should" is not the same as "is required to". > I agree with the should. But many companies take it (wrongly) as a requirement (at least that is what I have experienced so far). Also the division between "Application Development" and "Device Creation" and the fact that the Qt Company only talks about LGPL under "Application Development" misguides people into thinking you cannot use the LGPL license to develop embedded software or devices. That's clearly wrong if you know that the (L)GPL allows you to use the licensed software for any purpose. IMHO, it would be more correct to first divide between Open-Source vs Commercial and then divide the Commercial License between "Application" vs "Device". But I am starting to nitpick here. > Nothing you pointed out is dishonest. It's factually correct and suggests that > you should pay for your use of Qt in some way. I have to agree that it is factually correct. However, I keep thinking it is spreading doubt in a way that is pushing people to buy a license or get a lawyer. I might be wrong, but it is my personal feeling that it is done on purpose -at least to some extent. _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
