[Interest] Digia to acquire Qt from Nokia

Sascha Cunz sascha-ml at babbelbox.org
Wed Aug 15 23:21:59 CEST 2012

On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 08:06:08 AM Atlant Schmidt wrote:
>   And the "indirect sales value" matters not a
>   whit to the owner of the software (or the
>   shareholders of the owner) unless the owner
>   is actively reaping a significant fraction
>   of that "indirect sales value" (which Nokia
>   wasn't).
>   I'm sorry; the FOSS folks have argued for years
>   that they have a workable financial model but
>   I see no evidence that this is true for anything
>   other than individuals and relatively small-scale
>   commercial operations.

You do know that FSF purists like Stallmann actually invented the LGPL as a 
means of making glibc more attractive to developers? They almost at the same 
time started to state that the LGPL is contradictory to their view of the 
world and to doom it (the LGPL) as a "required evil".

But - as stated at several other places in this and similar threads - exactly 
the same was the objective of Nokia issuing a LGPL relicense of Qt.

>   Unfortunately, as has already been mentioned by several
>   other folks, the fact that a given piece of software is
>   licensed under the terms of the (L)GPL is a huge factor
>   arguing against its use in several industries. The more-
>   open licenses (BSD, MIT, etc.) are free from the large
>   burdens that (L)GPL imposes for disclosure, upgrade-
>   ability, extensive ongoing code analysis, and the like.

Amusingly, you seem here to try to prove against your own initial statement:
IF Nokia had relicensed Qt under a BSD, MIT, PD or any similar Do-What-The-
Fuck-You-Want-To-License [1], THEN they would really have _destroyed_ the 
monetary value of Qt beyond repair.


[1] http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/

More information about the Interest mailing list