[Interest] Qt free software policy

[Roland Hughes]

+5

At the time I was working on the IP Ghoster project (don't remember 
year) I inquired. They wanted $5K +- _and_ royalties. There was no 
license which would allow a lone developer to deliver a project to a 
client. You had to use the client's license and the client had to pay 
royalties and having to use client provided resources gets many people 
in trouble with the I and the R and the S.


https://www.regent.edu/admin/busoff/pdf/20-questions1099test.pdf

Scroll down to number 14.


On 8/14/19 11:15 PM, David M. Cotter wrote:
> i’m in a similar boat. i’m sure there are others who are NOT on this 
> list who are also in the same boat.
>> On Aug 14, 2019, at 1:22 PM, John Weeks<john at wavemetrics.com>  wrote:
>>
>> We are a small company selling a very large and complex application which is now based on Qt open source. At the time we first considered porting to Qt (version 4.3?) the license was very expensive for small company (six programmers) and the evaluation period simply wasn't adequate to deciding if it was the right way to go. So we went open-source when it became available when Nokia took over.
>>
>> Since then, we have wished that we had a commercial license in order to get a bit more traction on some bugs. The Qt Company wanted us to pay for all the  licensing that had accrued since we started using the LGPL version. That up-front cost is prohibitive, so we haven't done it.
>>
>> Perhaps, if you are trying to nudge folks toward commercial licensing, you could provide a path that isn't so expensive. Or maybe you have? We haven't bothered to look into it lately.
>>
>> -John

-- 
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593  (cell)
http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com