> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 11:54 AM > From: "Konstantin Tokarev" <[email protected]> > To: "Benjamin TERRIER" <[email protected]>, "Jason H" <[email protected]>, "qt > qt" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Interest] QtPdf from Qt open source online installer > > > > 20.10.2020, 18:12, "Benjamin TERRIER" <[email protected]>: > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 20:54, Jason H <[email protected]> wrote: > >> There's some license shenanegans going on. > >> https://www.qt.io/blog/change-in-open-source-licensing-of-qt-wayland-compositor-qt-application-manager-and-qt-pdf > >> However there was a later update: > >> https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2020-January/038457.html > >> > >> So I don't know why it was not included. > >> It seems that some people (myself included) objected to commericalizing a > >> module that was based on a open source engine to start with. > > > > Yes, I've seen the discussions about the license, but I thought it was > > solved. > > > > Given that The Qt Company is selling the QtPdf module under a commercial > > license on the marketplace I was thinking that > > they remove the QtPdf artefacts from the QtWebEngine packages. That would > > make sense for commercial users. > > > > However, for open source users it looks like a bug in the installer. > > Isn't this done intentionally to promote commercial licenses among open > source users?
Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to human stupidity. -Hanlon's razor. For me, because there was confusion over this module's license, I attribute it to that. Which also would be the same result as applying Occam's razor. _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
