[Interest] Qt free software policy

[Vadim Peretokin]

Sorry but I'll ask the obvious question: you bet your entire business
without paying for a license?

Have I misunderstood you?

On Wed, 14 Aug. 2019, 7:01 pm David M. Cotter, <dave at kjams.com> wrote:

> +1 on this
>
> i am in the process of porting my legacy project to Qt and am afraid that
> i’ve made the wrong choice.  i’m just one guy and i bet my whole business
> on the availability of what  i need from Qt under LGPL
>
> i’m already using a third party HTTP server so i’m not affected by this
> but it’s a worrying sign. I too agree that the HTTP server really should be
> LGPL.
>
> What’s going to happen? It’s taken me over a year’s worth of work to get
> this far with Qt and i’m only half done. did i make the wrong choice?
>
> -dave
>
> > On Aug 14, 2019, at 9:18 AM, Benjamin TERRIER <b.terrier at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Since we are talking about the future of Qt these days, I would like
> > to know The Qt Company free software policy with Qt.
> >
> > Today, most of Qt modules are released under 3 free software licenses:
> LGPLv3,
> > GPLv2 and GPLv3. Some modules are released only under GPLv3.
> > If my memory is good, these GPLv3-only modules are the ones which used to
> > be commercial-only modules (like Qt Charts).
> >
> > However, it seems to me that most, if not all (except Qt 3D), new Qt
> modules
> > are now being released only under GPLv3:
> >  - Network Auth
> >  - WebGL
> >  - WASM
> >  - Http Server
> >  - Lottie
> >  - Quick 3D
> >  - MQTT
> >
> > I understand that The Qt Company is only obligated to release new modules
> > under GPLv3 (because of the KDE agreement).
> > I understand also that The Qt Company business model is selling Qt
> licenses
> > and has no direct financial interests in releasing Qt under any other
> license.
> >
> > So I can understand that some modules, in particular those valuable for
> wealthy industrial companies,
> > are only released under GPLv3.
> > However, for some modules like HttpServer, it seems to be an odd choice.
> There are plenty
> > alternatives available under LGPL or more permissive licenses, so I do
> not see what
> > would be the loss of releasing it under LGPLv3.
> >
> > Also the fact that those modules are GPLv3 only is a problem when
> developing with other
> > components that are GPLv2 only (and not GPLv2+).
> >
> > So I would like that someone could officially confirm if all new modules
> will be
> > released under GPLv3 only. Or if it is something that is decided on a
> per module
> > basis.
> >
> > I believe that Qt users and contributors deserve to know what it The Qt
> Company
> > view on this.
> > Using an LGPLv3 framework is not the same thing as using a GPLv3
> framework
> > where some historical parts are available under LGPLv3 and all new
> features will be GPLv3 only.
> >
> > BR,
> >
> > Benjamin
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Interest mailing list
> > Interest at qt-project.org
> > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20190814/5b5aa777/attachment.html>