[Development] Changes to Qt offering
enmarantispam at gmail.com
Tue Jan 28 16:55:52 CET 2020
> Won't someone please step up and do it for us?"
Which is why I don't understand how the proposed model is supposed to help
TQtC and the community.
A lot of stuff they are dropping for opensource users will simply move to
less trusted and perhaps less stable sources but will still be perfectly
available which means the "lure" of the new commercial license is
completely moot for overwhelming majority of developers. The moment those
less trusted sources will turn out actually being malicious the backlash
will hit Qt as a whole. Removing these things doesn't matter in the end and
has the potential to make the company look even worse than these changes
The things that matter is the LTS (will hurt Qt more than opensource users,
imo) and the fact almost every new thing that happens in Qt recently
happens to be paywalled instead of LGPL.
Instead of doing what they are doing, they should rethink the cost of their
low/mid tier licenses to encourage wider adoption and seek crowdfunding.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:42 PM Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com>
> On 28/01/2020 01.37, Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> > You might have missed the info because it is in the blog post, but not in
> > Lars email:
> > There will be no more open source offline installer.
> Correction: there will be no offline installer *provided by TQtC*.
> Like Nikolai¹, what I expect to happen is that some third party will
> start repackaging Qt, and will become the de facto binary provider.
> Honestly, the first thing that went through my head when I read the blog
> was an image of someone at TQtC thinking: "Making binary installers is
> just so *haaaaard*. We really don't want to do it any more. Won't
> someone please step up and do it for us?"
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Development