[Interest] Qt free software policy

[Vadim Peretokin]

Still, it reads like the Instagram influencer argument: "Give me free stuff
and I'll get you exposure.", and we all know how silly that sounds like.

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 6:17 AM Tuukka Turunen <tuukka.turunen at qt.io> wrote:

>
>
> “This is wrong to say that the only alternative to Commercial + GPLv3 is
> Commercial only.”
>
>
>
> I did not say the _*only*_ alternative. Some new things are LGPL exactly
> to grow the user base. Qt for Python being one of such.
>
>
>
> Yours,
>
>
>
>                 Tuukka
>
>
>
> *From: *Benjamin TERRIER <b.terrier at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 22.18
> *To: *Tuukka Turunen <tuukka.turunen at qt.io>
> *Cc: *qt qt <interest at qt-project.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Interest] Qt free software policy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Le mer. 14 août 2019 à 20:36, Tuukka Turunen <tuukka.turunen at qt.io> a
> écrit :
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Qt’s approach to open-source is publicly described, but perhaps a bit
> hidden, check for example:
>
> · Section 3 of https://www.qt.io/faq/
>
> · https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Project_Open_Governance
>
> · https://www.qt.io/licensing/
>
>
>
> These pages are just presenting the current licensing options.
>
> They do not cover how The Qt Company view the licensing of future Qt
> modules.
>
>
>
> We have been releasing new add-on modules under GPLv3 and commercial
> licenses with intention of growing the adoption of commercial license for
> those making closed-source applications with Qt. Alternative for using
> GPLv3 and commercial would be to only offer these add-ons separately under
> a commercial license, which would mean not even those who are ok with GPLv3
> license could use these add-ons. Some of such components do exist, but most
> of our code is available under an open-source license as well.
>
>
>
> This is wrong to say that the only alternative to Commercial + GPLv3 is
> Commercial only.
>
> The new add-ons modules could be provided as GPLv3 + GPLv2 + LGPLv3.
>
> I understand the will to grow "the adoption of commercial license", but I
> believe that some modules which have a lot of alternatives available could
> be licensed also under GPLv2 and/or LPGLv3 without going against "the
> adoption of commercial license".
>
> Also having more module on LGPL can grow the Qt community leading to
> indirect sales of the commercial license.
>
>
>
> For instance when I work on GPLv3 projects I can use all Qt add-ons, but
> when I work on GPLv2 or LGPLv3 project I cannot use the most recent Qt
> modules.
>
> Which means that I have to find an alternative anyway. In the end I do not
> use these Qt add-ons, even for the GPLv3 projects as I have an alternative
> ready.
>
>
>
> At the same time we have developed a lot of new functionality, done a lot
> of improvements, and fixed a lot of bugs in functionality available also
> with LGPL license. This is a big investment, which directly benefits all Qt
> users whether they distribute their applications under LGPL, GPL or
> commercial license. Just look at the amount of new and changed code and you
> can see that the LGPLv3 parts are clearly not some legacy functionality,
> but very actively developed areas of Qt.
>
>
>
> I am not denying that.
>
> It is just that all the novelties are GPLv3 only and I think it should be
> made clear to the community that new LGPL modules are not to be expected.
>
>
>
> BR
>
>
>
> Benjamin
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190815/36e35ce9/attachment.html>