[Interest] QtPdf from Qt open source online installer

Jason H jhihn at gmx.com
Tue Oct 20 18:19:57 CEST 2020

> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 11:54 AM
> From: "Konstantin Tokarev" <annulen at yandex.ru>
> To: "Benjamin TERRIER" <b.terrier at gmail.com>, "Jason H" <jhihn at gmx.com>, "qt qt" <interest at qt-project.org>
> Subject: Re: [Interest] QtPdf from Qt open source online installer
> 20.10.2020, 18:12, "Benjamin TERRIER" <b.terrier at gmail.com>:
> > On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 20:54, Jason H <jhihn at gmx.com> wrote:
> >> There's some license shenanegans going on.
> >> https://www.qt.io/blog/change-in-open-source-licensing-of-qt-wayland-compositor-qt-application-manager-and-qt-pdf
> >> However there was a later update:
> >> https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2020-January/038457.html
> >>
> >> So I don't know why it was not included.
> >> It seems that some people (myself included) objected to commericalizing a module that was based on a open source engine to start with.
> >
> > Yes, I've seen the discussions about the license, but I thought it was solved.
> >
> > Given that The Qt Company is selling the QtPdf module under a commercial license on the marketplace I was thinking that
> > they remove the QtPdf artefacts from the QtWebEngine packages. That would make sense for commercial users.
> >
> > However, for open sourceĀ users it looks like a bug in the installer.
> Isn't this done intentionally to promote commercial licenses among open source users?

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to human stupidity. -Hanlon's razor.

For me, because there was confusion over this module's license, I attribute it to that.  Which also would be the same result as applying Occam's razor.

More information about the Interest mailing list