[Development] Renamed (again): Qt licensing shenanigans (again)

Jason H jhihn at gmx.com
Fri May 21 20:19:59 CEST 2021

> I agree with Jason: Doing the "no LTS for FOSS" at the moment of the
> 5.15->6.0 change was really a foul play, imho.

I'm currently attributing it to a license decision that for any
other release (say if there was a 5.16) would be fine, but in reality
was temporally coupled to the release of 6.0, and what 6.0 composed, which
was an unusual and separate decision. And these decisions could have been
made separately by different people and not realize the implications
of the two combined until it was pointed out.

It's a mistake that can be easily rectified. But what happens next is
going to show the true character of the Qt Corporation. If the decision
was made intentionally, or even so but isn't rectified, then that's
going to affect those open source users who don't legally need a license,
don't want or need Qt 6, but just need access to patches to keep
users happy. I can't really see that as s motivation for a commercial
license money grab, because in theory, by 6.2 things will be back to
normal. Starving open source license users of patch level changes to get
them to  convert to commercial for what, a year? Doesn't make sense so
me, so I'm not attributing it to malice.

What I'd like to see is:
- Open Source LTS patches restored until 6.x is at parity.
- An agreement that never again will Qt have a Major version release
  that isn't in parity with the previous feature release (meaning dropped
  feature have to be dropped Before the major release for at least one version)

Ultimately I think this was a learning experience.

More information about the Development mailing list