[Interest] Digia to acquire Qt from Nokia
charleyb123 at gmail.com
Tue Aug 14 17:48:35 CEST 2012
> >> most of the commercial licensees are sticking with the commercial
> > because of the ambiguity
> >> with the LGPL and how to apply it; and the fact that while Nokia did do
> > that, they have not provided any
> >> clarity to its use.
> > ... while developers of proprietary software, which are not commercial
> > licensees, use LGPL license :)
> Some may yes, but I think the general ambiguity left by the LGPL
> requirements still pushes most towards commercial licenses.
> So I don't think it has really changed anything in terms of business.
> I could be wrong - only someone familiar with the various deals within
> Nokia/Digia could really answer that, but that won't likely happen.
Agree with Ben, we're in a similar position: Commercial licensee, LGPL
requirements sufficiently ambiguous with "unquantified-risk" that
purchasing the "commercial-license" is "cheap-insurance". For us, the
"Unquantified-risk" relates to (1) LGPL compliance under various scenarios,
and (2) incremental costs associated with configuration-control of the
Those are likely "resolvable", and probably not-a-big-deal. But,
addressing them is not free (it will cost something.)
For example, we have added concern for "configuration-control": Embedded
medical devices, we need to maintain factory/manufacturer-control of the
user-configuration. FDA and other process-related validation protocols
make user-replacing of LGPL binaries problematic. We could probably figure
it out, but it would cost, including updates to the IFU (Instructions For
Use), user-access to our embedded configuration, additional
validation/verification protocols, etc. There's a possible "explosion" in
factory-supported configurations as a result (most customers have ongoing
As an aside, though:
*- IMHO Digia has been quite responsive/responsible as a vendor
*- IMHO Digia has had positive impact for both the commercial and
open-source Qt libraries
*- IMHO it's good to "provide cash" to support the Qt communities, as this
visibly manifests in development, servers, new Tier-1 platforms, CI,
bug-fixes, future versions, and an ever-improving Qt quality
We are the Qt-community -- all of us. People gotta eat, and somebody needs
to run the servers, and somebody needs to do the "not-fun" stuff to keep
the code alive. I think it's great that we have KDAB, ICS, and other
vendors supporting Qt, and IMHO Digia also adds value to the community with
their Commercial-license offering.
And, the presence of "Digia's-Commercial-License" takes nothing "away" from
the community: We're looking at outsourcing some Qt-related work, and all
of those vendors are on-the-table for consideration (and others, including
smaller Qt-specific contract-houses).
Similarly: If I had the cash, I'd bankroll the Brisbane kids for the great
work they were doing down there (Qt 3D, CI servers, etc.) I see "value" in
what they were doing, which is why I think it's ok to send cash to where
value is being created, no-matter what we want to "name" that
"cash-transfer" (e.g., "license", "consulting", "support", "tip-jar", etc.)
Yes, of course, if Digia someday became "evil" or no longer delivered
value, then we would re-visit our Commercial license purchase. But, from
what I've seen thus far, I see nothing that concerns me (quite the
Quite the contrary: We recently *renewed* our Commercial licenses because
we see Digia's active role at this current time as a "stabilizing-activity"
for the Qt community -- the *whole* community. (Our licenses were
otherwise not set to expire for months.).
Digia recently announced targeting "Tier-1" explicitly for iOS, Android,
and Win8 ... This is great stuff!! For the *whole* community, not just
Commercial-licensees! Who doesn't want that? ;-))
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Interest