[Interest] Qt free software policy

James Ross-Smith jars121 at gmail.com
Wed Aug 21 22:12:09 CEST 2019

This a quite a timely thread, as I, like several others in here, am trying
to decide on a Commercial or non-Commercial licensing approach with Qt.
I've submitted numerous contact/quote/trial requests on the TQtC website
over the last couple of weeks but never hear back, so it's very helpful to
stumble across this discussion.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 3:37 AM Adam Light <aclight at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 7:17 AM Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 14/08/2019 16.22, John Weeks 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.
>> Does TQtC *not* sell commercial-level *support* without the additional
>> commercial licensing rights (and retroactive costs)? If not, that seems
>> like an idiotic missed opportunity...
> If I recall correctly, we looked into this a few years ago and the answer
> was no. So we hired one of the big Qt consulting firms to work on an issue
> for us instead. Since we don't actually have any need for the commercial
> license (LGPL is just fine for what we use Qt for) there's really no
> incentive for us to purchase a commercial license other than for the
> support, but the pricing on the commercial license was close to an order of
> magnitude more than the value of the support we would get (again, this was
> years ago, so perhaps things have changed).
> Adam
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190822/cce10300/attachment.html>

More information about the Interest mailing list