Eli Schwartz via arch-general <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 11/08/2016 08:03 AM, Magnus Therning wrote: >> Um, the Qt licensing is rather more complicated than that nowadays: >> https://www.qt.io/licensing-comparison/ >> >> I think it went something like (vastly simplified and not weighed down >> by any sort of actual knowledge) >> >> 1. Trolltech used GPL on everything and sold a commercial license to >> actually make money. >> 2. Nokia bought Trolltech and didn't feel a need to make money on Qt, >> so they relicensed the lib under LGPL. >> 3. The Qt Company is back to needing to make money on Qt, so some newer >> parts are GPL. > > True, but LGPL >= GPL and however you slice it, it is not "closed sw". > > Granted, some newer things are actually (sometimes?) completely closed > source and only available under a commercial license, but that is not > "Qt", it is addons to Qt which AFAIK aren't even something e.g. KDE > actually are interested in. > > Mainly, my point is that Qt is actually an amazing model of a > commercially-developed FLOSS software with a sustainable business model > that accommodates both the commercial and open-source communities, and > it is kind of painful to hear someone accuse it of being "closed sw", > with all the attendant evil-anti-Linux-project emotional baggage that is > likely to evoke. We are in violent agreement on this! I just felt your first statement was a simplification that bordered on making it factually incorrect, hence my comment. /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0x927912051716CE39 email: magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx jabber: magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus If voting could really change things it would be illegal.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
