[Interest] Licensing

[Uwe Rathmann]

Hi Tuukka,

> This is not about making closed source applications with LGPL 
> licensed Qt, or whatever kind of business is done with such.

Of course this thread is also about these options - I'm criticizing
the way how the Qt Company tries to prevent users from taking this route.

> The point is that Qt as a dual licensed technology has some rules 
> related to the commercial license option.

I'm not qualified to comment the rules of the commercial options.

> Similar rule is related to not being ok to develop the solution with
> free version and then ship under commercial one. We do allow 
> migration from open-source to commercial - of course. The case by 
> case acceptance rule is there to avoid misuse.

Not being clear about what cases are good and which are bad is FUD. The
intended effect is to intimidate users, that would be totally fine with
the LGPL, because they might lose the commercial option in case their
situation changes.

As long as the Qt company is not willing to be crystal clear on this
subject my judgment stands.

> What comes to using FUD as sales strategy, that is not what we aim 
> for at all.

I attended one of the Qt roadshows in Munich - guess it was 2017. If FUD
is not the intention of the Qt Company you should talk.

Uwe