[Qt-interest] VS 2010?

[Philippe]

> Because I think that LGPL allow this, you need only to ship your patch
> to the Qt sources to your client (or, to be complete, the Qt sources
> patched).

Yes, LGPL allows you to do this. But this is not very convenient, and
for this sole reason, I prefer a Commercial license.

> Open a bug report or share your modifications with the community is
> something you are incouraged to, so you can share work with the
> community as the community share with you. If you don't do this, you
> are a selfish, on my point of view (I don't want to hurt anyone).

This is what I do, and regularly. But in a number of cases, the bugs,
even if reproducable and associated with a sample and a solution, are
not taken into account with enough priority by the Qt team (from my
point of view, of course), or it waits months for a resolution. What do
I say to your clients in the mean time?
Or a small feature change or addition is not accepted, while it means
much for my case.

This is a question of being pragmatic. Period.

Philippe

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 09:35:31 +0100
jjDaNiMoTh <jjdanimoth at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2011/3/3 Philippe <philwave at gmail.com>:
> >> The only point of having commercial version these days is to be able to
> >> change Qt source (any modifications to make it run on specific platform or bug fixes) without
> >> reporting the bugs/request changes and wait until the official version is updated.
> >
> > Right, but this is a major point if you are a reacting company with
> > demanding clients.
> 
> Could you point me to some docs with this statement?
> 
> Because I think that LGPL allow this, you need only to ship your patch
> to the Qt sources to your client (or, to be complete, the Qt sources
> patched).
> 
> Open a bug report or share your modifications with the community is
> something you are incouraged to, so you can share work with the
> community as the community share with you. If you don't do this, you
> are a selfish, on my point of view (I don't want to hurt anyone).
> 
> For the time spent on compiling, maybe you want to take a look into
> ccache? It saves money.