[Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 77, Issue 11

[Jean-Michaël Celerier]

> How can we expect new developers to go for Qt and QML, when they have
to face (L)GPL vs MIT license issues ?
If it's Qt vs Electron it's actually LGPL vs LGPL. Electron uses
libchromiumcontent and ffmpeg which are both under lgpl... pretty sure
libchromiumcontent still have some code from KHTML days.

Here's some FSF discussion about it :
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-12/msg00008.html
= and indeed LGPL is not mentioned anywhere in libchromiumcontent's license
: https://github.com/electron/libchromiumcontent

libchromiumcontent uses Blink which still has some copyright headers with
some famous @kde.org addresses :
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/master/Source/core/html/HTMLBaseElement.cpp




-------
Jean-Michaël Celerier
http://www.jcelerier.name

On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 5:18 AM, Roland Hughes <roland at logikalsolutions.com>
wrote:

> Benjamin,
>
> Though QML is a disgusting resource wasting pile of trash which should
> never be used for ___ANYTHING___, thank you for this response. This has
> been sitting in my inbox for a while because I definitely wanted to thank
> you before I nuked the message.
>
> I have encountered this "ask your lawyer"mentality time and time and time
> again. In one project in particular, a client whose project budget was
> bigger than Qt's annual revenue had developers and managers trying to get
> an answer to this very question. Sales kept demanding we get commercial
> licenses with royalties _nobody_ was going to pay. Finally, when they kept
> repeating "ask your lawyer" we sent the law office to ask.
>
> When the law office got done with them, suddenly sales was this meek
> little child on the phone
>
> "Go with the grace of God my child. We find you pious and worthy of
> sainthood."
>
> _Never_ getting a straight answer on licensing and the completely
> unforgivable trash called QML is one of the reasons I've started looking at
> U++ and other tools for clients and so are the clients.
>
> https://www.ultimatepp.org/
>
> Roland
>
>
> On 02/19/2018 08:40 AM, Benjamin wrote:
>
>> I have also heard The Qt Company employees, while giving a speech
>> about "choosing the right" license, say that
>> the Open Source license is for people who want to share their code...
>>
>> I do understand that The Qt Company is doing most of the work on Qt
>> and they need money, so they need to sell licenses.
>> But I do not understand this urge to be dishonest. I do feel that they
>> want to scare new developers and force them to buy a license.
>> I also have the feeling, that since all Qt websites are under qt.io,
>> it is harder and harder to find clear information about Qt Open Source
>> nature.
>>
>> How can we expect new developers to go for Qt and QML, when they have
>> to face (L)GPL vs MIT license issues ?
>> If they don't dig, they will meet all the communication of The Qt
>> Company explaining that the NEED to buy a license.
>> If they dig deeper, they will start to find mainly "ask your lawyer"
>> type of answers.
>> And so they will not buy a license, they will not ask their lawyer.
>> They will save thousands of euros on the license price or lawyer fees,
>> they will
>> save weeks of waiting for the lawyer response. They will just go with
>> the MIT license option and use Electron, NodeJS and other JS toys.
>>
>
> --
> Roland Hughes, President
> Logikal Solutions
> (630)-205-1593
>
> http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
> http://www.infiniteexposure.net
> http://www.johnsmith-book.com
> http://www.logikalblog.com
> http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog
> http://lesedi.us/
> http://onedollarcontentstore.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20180804/3094021d/attachment.html>