5 ms·
Qt used to be what I used as well, but the licensing has become so repulsive for professional use that I now refuse to touch it now (not even for my open source
by LarMachinarum 1y ago
Qt used to be what I used as well, but the licensing has become so repulsive for professional use that I now refuse to touch it now (not even for my open source side projects where this wouldn't be an issue).
Too bad the hopes from the early Nokia adoption days got smashed by MS mole Elop and the later owners of Qt.
- nextos 1y agoYeah, it's quite sad to see Qt on the N9 and, now, on SailfishOS. We were robbed of a future with lightweight and responsive native apps. Android pales in comparison.
- hermitcrab 1y agoI have a small business license which I use for developing 3 commercial application. It is ~$1000 per year and the licensing seems quite reasonable.
- Palomides 1y agowhy are you paying for a license? are there non-LGPL features you're using?
- hermitcrab 1y agoYes. I use the charts. But also my business is built on Qt, so it feels right to support them financially.
- ranger_danger 1y agoWe have no issues shipping both FOSS (LGPL) and proprietary solutions using Qt without having to pay any license fee... not sure what issues you're running into.
- rramadass 1y ago> using Qt without having to pay any license fee... Would you mind elaborating which Qt editions, linking etc. you use?
- ranger_danger 1y agoWe have been using the LGPL opensource version since the 4.x days including the latest 6.x, both static and dynamic linking.
- dabockster 1y agoThat's good to know. I'll have to look up those licenses another time.
- ahartmetz 1y agoThe licensing barely changed, the only change is the scare tactics of the Qt Company. The only thing to do is not to get scared by such legally meaningless noise.