@ekke thanks for sharing! still not clear what > > *With this in mind, we have leveled out the playing field for small teams > and growing businesses by providing an extended evaluation period of Qt for > up to 3 named developers.*
really means? On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 6:42 AM, ekke <e...@ekkes-corner.org> wrote: > for iOS I found this: > https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/ > 6463/in-2018-if-i-use-c-qt-5-10-0-to-build-a-closed-source- > application-requires-ope/6495#6495 > but sounds complicated for me as a mobile business app developer > > really sorry that there is no Indie mobile dev license from Qt > > I asked and got answer that they have tried this some years ago with no > success > Some years ago I moved from BlackBerryOS7 (JavaME) to BlackBerry10 > (Cascades/Qt 4.8) > This was first time I had to develop in C++ / Qt. BB10 Cascades was great > UX and performance. > So I also tried Qt itself, but performance of QQC1 was poor and I stopped. > Later BB10 died and I tried again to develop mobile apps with Qt. At that > time just first preview of QQC2 came out and I was impressed by UX and > performance. > So I started to develop mobille Apps using QQC2 and in the meantime my > apps have native speed. > > Also had some sessions at dev conferences where I talked about Qt for > Mobile. > Always same feedback from devs: looks great, but the costs ... > > so now with QQC2 Qt is a great solution for mobile, but many devs cannot > use it because of license - very sorry about that > > I'm using the startup license - but even the startup license info is > hidden at Qt's web sites. If you don't know about and search explicitely > for 'Qt start-up' you won't found https://www1.qt.io/start-up-plan/ > > Qt really has the potential to become a great player for mobile apps if > license model would be changed. > > > ekke > > Am 29.05.18 um 00:39 schrieb René Hansen: > > I can't speak for IOS, but at least on Android, all Qt libraries are > packed inside the application apk as .so files, so no static linking there. > > It seems the "go-to" reply on the list and from Qt in general is, "just > buy the license". Somewhat shortsighted, but understandable as it is, Qt is > a business, out to make a profit. However, and as I'm surely not alone in > thinking, I really don't get this approach towards small-timers. The > license cost just isn't feasible for a lone couch coder with a pet project, > who just want to put a $1 proprietary app on the store. Most those kinds of > apps never make much sales anyway and Qt is quickly excluded from the list > of candidate frameworks, due to this perceived upfront cost. > > The side effect of supporting indie devs and tinkerers are a lot more > profound though. That is where the ecosystem grows. Bigger ecosystem = more > growth opportunity for the "business" down the line. > > It's a shame that many devs are left with the same impression as yourself, > and easily jump ship to React Native or similar. Qt could easily be the > defacto standard for mobile app development. It's just not the narrative > being supported by the Qt corp. Hence, you won't find any official guide or > writeup on how to publish a closed source LGPL paid app on the app store. > > As far as I can tell though, there's really no reason why you can't > publish a paid app, which is still compliant. > > You need to let people relink against other versions of Qt, but that > simply entails making object files available on request. If ever one is > made... > > > /René > > > > > > On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 20:08 Sylvain Pointeau <sylvain.point...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> My mistake, I understood the question was about to make my app GPL >> compliant. >> I would agree with you for the desktop version but I don't think that it >> is feasible for a mobile app (is it not statically linked BTW?) >> and I also understood the app store was not GPL friendly, but maybe my >> knowledge is outdated. >> >> Best regards, >> Sylvain >> >> Le lun. 28 mai 2018 à 19:37, Jean-Michaël Celerier < >> jeanmichael.celer...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >>> > I thought about it but that does not work for all projects, and I >>> don’t see the business model in that case for my app. >>> >>> in which case would using Qt under the LGPL affect your business model ? >>> You don't have to publish your sources, only under the GPL. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------- >>> Jean-Michaël Celerier >>> http://www.jcelerier.name >>> >>> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Sylvain Pointeau < >>> sylvain.point...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 16:21, René Hansen <ren...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Or... >>>>> >>>>> Just make your app LGPL compliant and use Qt anyway. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I thought about it but that does not work for all projects, and I don’t >>>> see the business model in that case for my app. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Interest mailing list >>>> Interest@qt-project.org >>>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest >>>> >>>> > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing > listInterest@qt-project.orghttp://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest > > > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest > > -- Best regards, Vlad
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
