[Development] Changes to Qt offering

Matthew Woehlke mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com
Tue Jan 28 17:09:00 CET 2020

On 28/01/2020 10.55, NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
>>   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.

Alternatively, one preferred, *trusted* alternate source emerges and
becomes the next LibreOffice. ***Fantastic*** news for the community.
Still not so good for TQtC.

(I'm trying to decide, in context, whether to laugh at calling TQtC

> 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.

I agree... somewhat. Where I disagree is that I would go even further
and suggest rethinking their entire business model. Maybe look at
companies with a strong and successful open source story. (Say, isn't
there one of those behind CMake?)

(Opinions expressed in this message are my own, and do not reflect those
of my employer.)

More information about the Development mailing list