Qt, the GPL, Business and Freedom

175 Comments

1. 2005-08-06 9:08 am

   pravda

   Eric has many good points when you consider everything from a Trolltech-centric little picture viewpoint.

   Tim has many good points when you consider everything from a Linux-centric big picture viewpoint.

   The company I work for is a small ISV. We could not survive using simply the GPL plus services. It would marginalize our intellectual property which is our core competency, not services.

   However, we are not rich enough to afford Trolltech’s commercial license. So making Qt products is economically impossible for us.

   So I believe there is some middle ground I think for Trolltech’s pricing to come down for ISVs. The bulk of ISVs are small companies, not the big corporations that Qt is apparently priced for. Also many small ISVs are groups within big companies that do not have unlimited budgets.

   It is perhaps the case where Trolltech does not feel it is economically profitable to support small ISVs and other small players. It is hard to say as the pricing model only supports two extremes today and I cannot find any information on what the future pricing models would be.

   I don’t see much compromise in Tim’s viewpoints vs. Eric’s viewpoints. It will take another few broadsides back and forth to get some learning most likely. It is an important time for FOSS to hammer out what the GPL really means. Is the focus on “no IP + services” type of companies or will the GPL evolve to respect the IP that is inherent in the copyrighted code (beyond the code itself)??

   Right now, sorting out the GPL and the focus on how it is supposed to create economies and ecologies is the most important thing happening in the software world. I would hope to see an evolution of the communication beyond broadside vs. broadside which seems to be a very common geek communication modus operandi.
• 2005-08-06 10:04 am

  butters

  “It is perhaps the case where Trolltech does not feel it is economically profitable to support small ISVs and other small players. It is hard to say as the pricing model only supports two extremes today and I cannot find any information on what the future pricing models would be.”

  This is a good point. Business has never been easy for the small ISV. Did anyone really make money off of Windows 95 shareware? It’s tough because it is likely in the current climate that someone will come along and marginalize your company’s IP by releasing a similar product under a GPL-compatible license. Is it a better bet to release under GPL and attempt to leverage market share to monetize something (service or otherwise)? Is it better to develop in Java/Mono/Gtk+ and hope that KDE users will be a targetable audience for your commercial software? Or is it best in the long run to pay the Qt license and hope that the revenue stream eventually pays off?

  As Eric’s post points out, desktop Linux is not a friendly space for commercial ISVs at the moment. We don’t pay for software. We’d rather miss the functionality for now and try to develop a free alternative as quickly as possible. When the real desktop Linux “tipping point” comes, it will still be the case that Linux users will not want to pay for software. There will be a niche market for commercial software on Linux, and this will probably be dominated by large ISVs with a proprietary software legacy (Adobe for example).

  The Linux economy will be disappointing for ISVs. Markets are not usually created to serve and forever serve the best interests of the consumer, and this is what the GPL does. Vendors will have no choice since consumers will demand the best value. Service oriented businesses might see the Linux economy as a huge opportunity, however. In the long term (20 years?), the GPL will create the world’s first monopoly that truly serves the consumer.
• 2005-08-06 12:09 pm

  pravda

  This is a good point. Business has never been easy for the small ISV. Did anyone really make money off of Windows 95 shareware? It’s tough because it is likely in the current climate that someone will come along and marginalize your company’s IP by releasing a similar product under a GPL-compatible license. Is it a better bet to release under GPL and attempt to leverage market share to monetize something (service or otherwise)? Is it better to develop in Java/Mono/Gtk+ and hope that KDE users will be a targetable audience for your commercial software? Or is it best in the long run to pay the Qt license and hope that the revenue stream eventually pays off?

  The popular Windows shareware does pull in reasonable money. Look at something like WinZip for instance. Or before WinZip, PKZip for DOS/Windows. There are today many small companies (and individuals) making a living off of the various forms of shareware.

  WinZip was recently sold to another company (for 3-4 million USD is what I hear) who will attempt to make the company profitable / more profitable. Here’s what an analyst had to say:

  “There aren’t that many free businesses out there that have converted to a paid model,” said Peter Coleman, senior application software analyst at ThinkEquity Partners, a research and investment banking firm. “Conceptually, it can work if you add value to the product and package it well for customers.”

  There are no popular GPL shareware programs that I am aware of. Usually GPL programs are “free software” or “please donate ware”.

  The big issue with the GPL is that it destroys the software business model where your code is your IP. It allows any customer to take your code and do what they want with it, including reselling it for money and putting you out of business.

  In return for destroying this common software business model, the GPL enables service software service business models. The revenue stream is not attached to the code anymore, but to ancillary services that presumably you have some core competence to deliver.

  Two things come to mind on the GPL.

  First is that for software that was formerly cheap, having a GPL-only option will eliminate the broad and thin code-based revenue pool. In its place will be add-on/support services. So more and more software will be designed to require more support/services as this is where the money is. If we look at many of the underdocumented and hard(er) to use Linux applications, we can see economic reinforcement is driving app development and the typical quality of Linux apps is a few big steps less than that of apps on Mac and Windows. Without the economic incentive to build quality apps, there may never been enough quality apps to ensure the success of a particular GPL-based platform.

  Second is that for expensive applications, the GPL functions merely as an “early availability” code escrow. The cost of supporting the code for expensive apps will be factored into the cost of the apps driving the cost to the customer even higher.

  So what comes of this WRT Qt?

  To begin, as Qt is not economically viable for small ISVs, we will not see any large widget or component library for it as these libraries are usually built by small ISVs. As it is the small ISVs who would also be many of the customers for widget libraries (along with corporations), the lack of this layer in the food chain will lead to starvation at a number of layers in the ecosystem, ultimately inhibiting the sales of Qt to larger corporations. We will see small ISVs turn to other software ecosystems where the GPL is not required.

  The large corporations that use Qt will simply absorb the high costs of the licenses. It is only for them that the relative cost of Qt is low. So nothing much will change here as large corporations already pay a lot of money for software.

  Qt continue on as a part of the GPL ecosystem, but will not make any substantial inroads to anywhere else except for mobile phones.

  And for GPL-based economies?

  The GPL makes it more difficult for the small GPL developer to make money. As “time=money” and time is finite, these small developers will not participate in GPL markets as they cannot afford it economically. There is no pay-off as they are developing nothing of value which they ultimately own.

  So who will participate in the GPL economy? Mostly large companies that depend on low quality software that requires a lot of support/services. So we find IBM a major backer of Linux. And Sun. And HP. And Oracle. And other companies who make a lot of money on services.

  Thus one possible future of GPL economies is a split between large mega corporations and gentleman coders who can develop software for free as their livelihood does not depend on it. By the participants involved, we can see that in this future, GPL economies will belong only to the wealthy.

  It is hard for me to imagine how the goals of mega corporations and gentleman coders are going to support desirable and admirable communities as time goes by.

  It is even more difficult to imagine how there would ever be any system created here that serves the consumer. The gentleman coders cannot relate to the consumer and the large mega corporations that are funding the GPL programs just want to bleed the consumer for as much as possible.

  We must not be so naive as to think the GPL does away with greed.

  Of course, all this discourse depends on the evolution of the GPL itself. Who knows what 3.0/4.0 will be like.

  To date, I do not believe the GPL has addressed the livelihood of the people whose IP is the code/product vs. services. The GPL may evolve to provide a better economic balance than it does today. If the GPL does not evolve, we will see a bifurcation of the software world — lots of low quality software that requires a lot of service/support vs. quality products that require less service/support. It is already what we see today with Windows/Mac vs. Linux and this pattern, driven by the economics of the GPL, would likely continue.

  There will be occasional dual-license companies such as MySQL. However, these companies are artificially propped up by massive VC investment hoping for an acquisition. Given a bit of time, only the software that is required for the service businesses of large enterprises will survive (and what the gentlemen coders provide pro bono).

  I have little idea what this world will look like. I know today it is damn hard to get any work done with open source software unless you have already mastered a rough learning curve. With the additional time it takes to use open source tools, one would expect businesses where time is important to shy away from GPL programs and those businesses where time does not matter to invest in GPL programs. So maybe the important businesses of the future, wineries and distilleries, will all run GPL 😉

  Hmmmm. I think I will write this up in better form and offer it to OfB. See if they will publish it. There is a vast middle ground of opinion between Eric and Tim that would be interesting to talk about.
• 2005-08-06 1:23 pm

  Anonymous

  “Of course, all this discourse depends on the evolution of the GPL itself. Who knows what 3.0/4.0 will be like.

  To date, I do not believe the GPL has addressed the livelihood of the people whose IP is the code/product vs. services. The GPL may evolve to provide a better economic balance than it does today. If the GPL does not evolve, we will see a bifurcation of the software world — lots of low quality software that requires a lot of service/support vs. quality products that require less service/support. It is already what we see today with Windows/Mac vs. Linux and this pattern, driven by the economics of the GPL, would likely continue. ”

  Web services presently slot inbetween the two. Of course 3.0 could close that loophole.
• 2005-08-06 1:44 pm

  Anonymous

  Thanks for the thoughtful post.

  The big issue with the GPL is that it destroys the software business model where your code is your IP. It allows any customer to take your code and do what they want with it, including reselling it for money and putting you out of business.

  Let’s be very clear here that noone is forcing anyone to license their original code under GPL or any other open license. So I’d roll back the “destroys the business model” rhetoric. If you want to keep your core business value in your code, then don’t open the code. There’s a little company in Seattle you might want to check out that follows this model and they seem to be doing very well for themselves. That model is going to be valid for quite a long time to come, if not indefinitely.

  I question your basic premise. I think what we’re seeeing with free and open licenses is the very slow, very gradual movement of a great deal of software to commodity status. (Server Linux is a good example, big-budget video games are a bad example.) And I think the overall effect on programmers will be… just about nil. Most coders don’t make their living producing over-the-counter software anyway, they produce custom code for internal use. If all OTC software disappeared tomorrow (and it won’t), the far majority of programmers would still have their jobs. Outsourcing is probably a much bigger issue in their lives. And even if that weren’t true, commoditization isn’t exactly something you can control. It happens to segments of all mature markets, and ultimately benefits companies and consumers.

  So who will participate in the GPL economy? Mostly large companies that depend on low quality software that requires a lot of support/services.

  The best, most successful, most mature example we have of a “GPL economy” so far is the Linux server space. And I think most sysadmins will disagree that Linux server solutions are necessarily any lower in quality or require more support and services than other, closed solutions. In particular situations, in particular match-ups, sure – Linux has advantages and disadvantages like anything else. (I’m not trying to start a Unix vs. Linux war here.) But the proprietary alternatives have similar advantages and disadvantages, and Linux does very well in that space.

  In the “consumer app” space, probably the most successful single app is Firefox (GPL/MPL). Again, I’d question your premise that open = lower quality and requires more support. I don’t think it’s supported by the products we’ve seen so far.
2. 2005-08-06 9:25 am

   Saem

   someone comes up with a toolkit truly better than Qt nothing is going to happen. And what’s really needed is a strong and powerful runtime, vm and everything which is performance oriented and as language neutral as possible, mono is, whethere people like to admit it or not rather encumbered, due to many unresolved issues — MS has patents on interactions which take place in a .Net environment that would be a big hinderance.

   Once that’s in place a really strong toolkit on top of that would bring at the very least KDE, which is a largely technology/merit driven community to come on board.

   Until that’s done, there is no point talking about change, because there really isn’t anything better, Qt is an excellent TK, when it comes to a performance and usability.
• 2005-08-06 9:42 am

  pravda

  While the option of a third toolkit/platform would give the Linux platform more choices, I believe that there may be “fix the economic issues” possibilities.

  One possible option would be for a big company like IBM to purchase Trolltech and then redo the licensing structure to make Qt more affordable for small ISVs and remove some of the funny Trolltech restrictions (i.e. if you start developing a GPL app, you cannot then dual license this app later).

  Then much as IBM did with Derby (Cloudscape), or Sun has done with various Apache bits, Qt’s development could be fully open-sourced.

  If Qt is recognized as being critical for the success of the Linux platform, then a Qt buyout will be looked at more closely.

  Today, however, it seems that most of the big players have focused on GNOME and the various GNOME components. Even an investor in Trolltech, Borland, went in another direction vs. Qt after doing Kylix. So the probability of this option I am describing is quite unknown.

  Hence your idea of developing another platform may end up as what really happens. There are probably technical issues that could be addressed as well. One thing that is good about Mono is that it provides something of a language neutral API. This may be an important feature to have in any future developments. If the big players fund a new platform (as Geronimo is being funded, say) then there will be new avenues for Linux to move forward without having to spend money on a Trolltech buyout.

  And of course the GPL itself needs to keep evolving so that it is the foundation of a fair economic system and many diverse software ecologies.
• 2005-08-06 10:11 am

  remenic

  One possible option would be for a big company like IBM to purchase Trolltech and then redo the licensing structure to make Qt more affordable for small ISVs and remove some of the funny Trolltech restrictions (i.e. if you start developing a GPL app, you cannot then dual license this app later).

  Sounds like a great idea! But you’re forgetting something. Who will maintain Qt then? IBM, if there’s no profit? Or maybe the community? Well, we already have a community based toolkit, they are called GTK+, FLTK, FOX, wxWidgets, and the list goes on. For some wierd reason though, they all don’t match the sheer beauty of Qt (API wise).

  There’s a reason why Qt is as powerful as it is today. It has a dedicated, motivated team that works on it EVERY DAY. Unless you start to pay volunteers to hack on it day after day (by which they won’t be volunteers anymore, but employees) you won’t see Qt develop as strong as it does today.
• 2005-08-06 10:14 am

  remenic

  Okay I’m replying to myself here, that’s not good…

  Apparantly replying to posts when you just wake up is not a good idea. I somehow read the parent’s post as “removing the propietary license and making it completely OpenSource”.

  Pravda in fact did not say this, so I look pretty stupid right now. Anyway, my comment were against OpenSource’ing Qt completely (I guess that’s a new topic now). I hope you don’t take offense, pravda
3. 2005-08-06 9:32 am

   butters

   I am sad to report that, although it is 4AM, I actually halfway bought the misguided drivel in the first two posts. He starts with a little bit of post-XFree86 rhetoric concerning the GPL and how its restrictive nature poses an obstacle to commercial software vendors contributing to free software platforms. And he ends with some examples to illustrate how expensive it is to license Qt for commercial development and how the KDE project can’t control this. Logically he concludes that KDE should be compelled to change toolkits. But in the middle is a key misconception on which his entire argument lies (pun somewhat intended):

   “Here’s why: let us say I get an itch to write a non-Free software program. Plenty of people do, and most desktop users — even GNU/Linux ones — use one or more of these non-Free tools.”

   Read this twice, then think about whether this can possibly be the case. How many “people” write commercial software for Linux? Are they plenty? How many desktop Linux users use commercial software, particularly commercial Qt software? Are they in the majority?

   It was not until I read the reply from the KDE dev that I realized that his rebuttal made perfect sense. It was not a zealous defense of the GPL. It outlined why Trolltech charging for commercial access to Qt is a small expense for commercial software firms, how commercial software does not and will not drive the growth of desktop Linux, and how the policy might convince “greedier” independent developers to think long and hard about whether they really want to make their software non-free.

   I immediately admonished myself. How could I have read the previous articles without immediately finding exception with them, given that the rebuttal was clearly a slam dunk for me? It was then that I found the offending logic that managed to slip through my (apparently not so) well-honed drivel filter.

   At least I immediately realized how infeasible it would be to port KDE to an alternative toolkit. I read the first article to imply that KDE would cease to be relevent in a desktop Linux market driven to a significant degree by commercial interests (which in reality will always remain a niche market).

   Beware the drivel, it is everywhere!!
4. 2005-08-06 9:34 am

   Haicube

   What I think is interesting is that you can really notice how more people take an active stance against the GPL today. A couple of years ago it was all gold n glory, but now when people have thought the license through they quickly realize that it is not free and it is sure as hell not doing the job it was supposed to do. I guess this is also the reason why the BSDs are taking so many users from Linux.

   At some point the GPL community will implode and many will switch to other licenses
• 2005-08-06 10:34 am

  butters

  “What I think is interesting is that you can really notice how more people take an active stance against the GPL today… I guess this is also the reason why the BSDs are taking so many users from Linux… At some point the GPL community will implode and many will switch to other licenses”

  Nope. The GPL community can never implode. The license prevents it. In the extreme worst case, all development halts, but the software remains free. The BSD license allows for implosion to occur, however.

  I would be interested in seeing the BSD “switch” campaign show some figures. Desktop BSD is a particularly interesting phenomenon that is just getting started. Note I don’t count MacOS as a BSD in this sense, since it doesn’t qualify as a free software system by any stretch.

  I think you’re missing an important point here: the “GPL community” cannot “switch to other licenses.” This would require, for example, that the Linux kernel and all of the GNU tools be scrapped for something else. Relicensing GPL software is a violation of copyright law, and the FSF would unleash their hairiest and dirtiest hippie lawyers.

  People are taking a stance against the GPL in the same sense as 19th century industrialists took a stance against worker unions. The GPL is good for the common man and saps power and control from proprietary software firms (note that the GPL doesn’t have any problem with commercial open source software unless it links to or derives from GPL code, and that GPL coexists with the LGPL on Linux systems).

  The more I think about the Trolltech issue, the more I like what they’re doing. They impose a penalty for developing commercial software as opposed to free software. It is by no means unprecedented to charge royalties for commercial use of development toolkits.
• 2005-08-06 1:37 pm

  Anonymous

  “Nope. The GPL community can never implode. The license prevents it. In the extreme worst case, all development halts, but the software remains free. The BSD license allows for implosion to occur, however. ”

  Er, no it doesn’t. In both the BSD and GPL case what keeps them going is the easy availability of source code. Remove the Internet and I’d be willing to bet that both would suffer. Also the “lockin” argument (which you implied) only holds for the unique changes that someone adds. The original is quite whole, and available.
• 2005-08-06 2:36 pm

  Anonymous

  Relicensing GPL software is a violation of copyright law, and the FSF would unleash their hairiest and dirtiest hippie lawyers.

  While I generally agree with what you wrote, this is incorrect.

  Let’s say I write any program — a kernel module or a pretty pink calculator for my niece. I licence the program under the GPL.

  Years go by, and along the way I get a contributor. I also get interest from a company to buy exclusive rights to the code. What can I do? Let’s deal with the base facts, and from there look at options.

  * The code I wrote I still own the copyright to.

  * The code the contributor wrote is owned by the contributor.

  * The GPL licenced code can not be relicenced to retroactively remove the GPL.

  Screwed? Nope. Here are the options;

  * As copyright owner of the code I wrote, I can relicence it as I feel fit.

  * I can talk with my contributor and ask him to assign copyright to a fork of his code. He might even do so for free.

  * I can re-write the code my contributor provided, making the program 100% mine under copyright…and then assign the code under any other licence I choose.

  This depends entirely on who owns the copyright. The reason the FSF asks for copyright to be assigned to them is so that they can enforce that copyright when abused. It also means that the code will not likely be made propriatory and will remain to be under a free licence.

  Yet, once GPLed, that distribution of code or binary is GPLed. Future ones, depending on the copyright holder’s wishes, may not be.
• 2005-08-06 1:07 pm

  Anonymous

  Yeah right. In what universe do you live in? 3 years ago there were just as many anti-GPL zealots as today, and they were just as vocal. Heck, I dare to say that there are *less* anti-GPL zealots these days. 3 years ago, most posts on Slashdot were along the lines of “GPL is viral!”, these days you see a lot less of them.

  The GPL community is only “imploding” in your own little fantasy world.
5. 2005-08-06 9:56 am

   Anonymous

   Same old story. Ok, KDE is per license a free and open system: If you want to use it, show your code. If you want to make money based on this code you have to pay for Qt deps when you do not want to share your code. If you don’t like Qt-deps wrap around this like Apple and Nokia did.

   I dont have any problem that KDE is “damned” to stay as an free and open plattform. The past shows its community is strong enough to overcome limits and if you look at KDE now its a system of its own, plattform independed and every-day-work feature complete.

   So what is Timothy talking about? Its about commercialization. Some people think this is a good thing for Linux or Desktop-Linux. But I look back on the beginnings of Linux and/or KDE. There was no Adobe, no SAP, no SUN, no IBM. Of course, their involvement helped to make OS more popular and known for common users. But I believe more in KDEs community than on the help of closed source software. For a multi-million-$-company Qt license fees is a non-issue. So we talk about the small companies or single developer. There I dont think it is fair to grap the code and tools and give nothing back. GPL means fair use.

   The success of Linux IS the GPL not the LGPL. If we forget our roots from where do we get the next generation developers? RMS had a vision to free the code from commercial interests and to learn from each other. Now, this dream come true and Free Software is real. What is the next step? Back to closed source apps based on open libs? Do we want open apps or open libs?

   Bye

   Thorsten
6. 2005-08-06 11:07 am

   Saem

   TT opened up their lib, say LGPL, would enough companies pay for TT’s support services?
• 2005-08-06 11:40 am

  Anonymous

  TT opened up their lib, say LGPL,

  Man, do you consider the Lesser GPL to be more open than the GPL itself ? You could say it’s more corporate-friendly, but more OPEN ?!?! If you use the word OPEN as a synonyme of “friendly to closed-source apps”, then you’re doing doublespeak.

  GNU Lesser General Public License, or GNU LGPL for short.

  This is a free software license, but not a strong copyleft license, because it permits linking with non-free modules. It is compatible with the GNU GPL. We recommend it for special circumstances only.

  Source : http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/
• 2005-08-06 4:54 pm

  eMagius

  Doublespeak? Someone’s been sipping RMS’s Kool-Aid.

  The more you permit, the more open you are, not the other way around. The LGPL is certainly more open than the GPL — it allows all the freedoms of the GPL and more.
• 2005-08-07 11:09 am

  seguso

  Stallman has confuted this logic many times. Simply put, the freedom to remove freedom is a nonsense. Claiming that BSD or LGPL if “more free” because it gives you the freedom to remove freedom is just silly.
• 2005-08-07 11:21 am

  pravda

  Stallman has confuted this logic many times. Simply put, the freedom to remove freedom is a nonsense. Claiming that BSD or LGPL if “more free” because it gives you the freedom to remove freedom is just silly.

  Why can’t the *creator* and *owner* of code decide to offer this code at the “freedom” level that the *owner* wants to?

  The GPL *takes away* rights from the developer, creator, and inventor and gives those rights to the public. To people who have a small or zero investment in the original work.

  So far as I can see, the GPL exists to fuck over the small developer as the GFL destroys the “the code is my IP” business model and replaces it with “somehow I must provide services to my customer”.

  This “services” model gives a positive incentive to produce low quality broken code that needs a lot of “service” to make it work.

  To use a car analogy, the GPL will drive the development of lots of crappy cars that always need to go the shop for service.

  What a great world that will be.

  So far as I can tell, the GPL is only appropriate for “public services” type projects. It should be mandatory for all taxpayer-funded code. But it is not appropriate for private enterprise.
7. 2005-08-06 11:08 am

   Anonymous

   I’d take Qt over the proprietary and buggy Microseft offer any day. I’ve recently used one of those PocketPC PDAs and, let me tell you, Microseft Mobile is the worst piece of shit I’ve seen since the proprietary Microseft MS-DOS.
8. 2005-08-06 11:34 am

   Anonymous

   Full agreement with Thorsten. Why is everyone so hung up on commercial software? Commercial software is hardly critical for the success of KDE, an *open source* desktop. They may lag behind commercial software in a lot of areas, but I don’t think anyone wants to solve that situation by using a ton of commercial software with KDE, they’d rather plug away at KDE and try to catch up.

   If you want proprietary software, for heavens sake use Windows or OSX, two far more user friendly OSs (barring malware issues). If you don’t care about paying for software that limits what you can do with it, why would you spend the time getting to know Linux and getting it to run at all? Take away open source, and you take away the reason to use Linux in the first place!

   So I repeat, who gives a rip about commercial software on linux? And if you must have it, who the fark cares if it uses Qt? Trolltech might care, but I don’t understand why any of you do.
9. 2005-08-06 11:49 am

   Anonymous

   Most of us accept the GPL dual-license strategy as a valid one – it works for Trolltech, it works for MySQL, and so on. But part of the problem with this is that when developing an open standard, it’s very problematic to say “this standard is open and free, except for commercial development, then you have to pay or negotiate a fee with Company X.” That’s how GPL dual-licensing strategies work, and that’s great, but it isn’t how open standards work. So we end up with problems like The Open Group putting together a draft for desktop standards and realizing they can’t stick Qt in there. And make no mistake about it, standards like that are important for the future of Linux.

   But all of this should be academic. Windows and Mac systems have multi-toolkit desktops and have for ages – Carbon and Cocoa apps can both be first-class applications on a Mac, for example. There’s absolutely no reason, other than petty politics, that a GTK+ application can’t be a first-class application on a KDE desktop, and a KDE or Qt application can’t be a first-class application on a Gnome desktop. If standards groups need to bless a toolkit, it should be no problem if they bless one with LGPL or looser licensing. If developers choose a GPL or commercially licensed toolkit for a particular app, it should also be no problem (from an integration point of view). If desktop projects choose one or the other for their base technology and bundled apps, that’s great – but the choice should be inconsequential to the user. Purists may always want a single-toolkit desktop, but the reality is that ordinary users don’t give a damn how an application was written – they just want all of the pieces to fit together in a usable, integrated way, and that is 100% technically feasible.

   Leaders of the KDE and Gnome communities need to put the politics aside and work more seriously on cross-desktop integration technologies. I’m aware that much progress has been made, but so far they’ve only scratched the surface of what is possible. It isn’t the existence of multiple toolkits or two major desktop projects that is holding us back (if anything, the internal competition helps drive things forward), contrary to popular belief. It’s the lack of baseline technologies and standards for first-class integration. And that is going to require a few people on both sides to wake up, grow up, and start putting ordinary users first.
10. 2005-08-06 11:49 am

    pauls101

    There seems to be a lot of confusion about TrollTech. They “support” OSS by providing a GPL toolkit, yet they charge too much for it as a commercial product. I don’t envy them their position in the community, and I sincerely hope they’re smart enough to simply ignore the rhetoric floating around. It would get pretty depressing otherwise!

    KDE can’t switch from Qt. Period. If they tried, they’d lose years, spawn innumerable forks, and generally fragment and marginalize themselves to the point that they’d just disappear. It wouldn’t help Gnome either: KDE creating that kind of confusion and FUD opportunities would hurt the entire Linux platform and everyone on it, whichever desktop they use. Imagine Bill’s glee: his plan to wreck Linux (Mono / .NET) is working great on Gnome; now if KDE would just commit suicide too….

    Face it, the GPL is not free. Like all licenses, it protects someone’s rights at the expense of someone else. Unlike most, it zealously protects the rights of “users” (many of whom have no use for or understanding of said rights) at the expense of those who create it. The fact that a developer can use others’ work does not make up for the fact that he cannot decide the terms under which it will be released. This is fine for those on top of the pyramid who can dual license (MLM, anyone) but has always been intolerable to me on moral grounds. The result has been ongoing controversy and fostering the attitude that Linux users don’t pay for software: that’s a big reason that big name programs don’t appear. The rest of us get to develop something, hand it out, sell support (switch development for running a help desk!) and hope someone else doesn’t do the same thing slightly better, starting with our work.

    My suggestion: if Trolltech really gets the GPL, they should sell their commercial license and support separately. Anyone who can’t afford the commercial license (yet) could use Qt, maybe under a revenue-limited model as well. It wouldn’t hurt Trolltech’s income all that much, since most commercial users would still buy support contracts, and they’d expand their user base considerably (which is, face it, the real motiviation behind Qt GPL.)
11. 2005-08-06 11:51 am

    Anonymous

    Why is it that on many US websites, you can see a lot of criticizing and despising of the GPL in favor of proprietary software ? We don’t have that (to that extent) on German and French websites. Looks like a cultural difference : I think that in the US, the interests of corporations are given more consideration than in Europe. Not that I want to despise the US or anything, I hope I don’t offend anyone.
12. 2005-08-06 11:55 am

    Anonymous

    My theory is: if Trolltech would be an US american company their toolkit would be considered as “US property” and most of those people would by hook or crook defend Qt for not being available under LGPL.
• 2005-08-06 4:38 pm

  japail

  I’m confused. Are you suggesting some manner of nationalism? I’m sure Microsoft would like some of that.
13. 2005-08-06 11:58 am

    Anonymous

    As much as I agree with some of what Timothy says (I would like to use QT for something commercial but it’s prices out of my leg) it is neither necessary nor practical for KDE to part with QT. It is true that KDE and all its apps on GTK+ has some appeal (finally all your apps look the same) this appeal is false (TK, Fox, FLTK, AWT/Swing, GNUStep and so on) and working on a toolkit replacement as massive as QT is hard work even if you have some starter code. KDE will just have to live with the fact that 1) some commercial developers will go with another toolkit 2) they won’t be able to integrate KDE specific stuff into QT the same way Gnome can with GTK. Fortunately they are compensated by having Trolltech working on their toolkit, and I doubt that GTK gets the same kind of attention from its supporters.
14. 2005-08-06 12:00 pm

    Anonymous

    > yet they charge too much for it as a commercial product.

    Says who? The market disagrees with you.
15. 2005-08-06 12:06 pm

    Anonymous

    “Why is it that on many US websites, you can see a lot of criticizing and despising of the GPL in favor of proprietary software?”

    Because in the U.S.A. one could actually make a living, and good one, selling proprietary software.

    “We don’t have that (to that extent) on German and French websites.”

    I can name a few American made proprietary consumer-oriented software packages available in Germany and France.

    Can’t say I have seen a lot of French and German proprietary software in American retail stores.

    “I think that in the US, the interests of corporations are given more consideration than in Europe.”

    I think that Europe is more of the software consumer than producer. As a consumer, it is interested to drive prices down. GPL is a great way to force producer drive software prices down.

    How would software producer make money on GPL,- does not worry freeloaders.

    Not that I want to despise the Europe or anything, I hope I don’t offend anyone.
16. 2005-08-06 12:12 pm

    l3v1

    the licensing of Qt is becoming a stumbling block to the “desktop’s adoption”

    Mmkay, so that’s why it’s been on the raise constantly over the years and almost all the time well above any other *nix desktop environment ?

    For one, I care much less about licensing issues of people I don’t care about (i.e. some companies) as about the usability and ease of development of and for qt/kde. For quite a while now, kdevelop3 just rules. I’ve taken my time with vstudio, eclipse and the like, writing linux apps with gui for kde with kdevelop just kicks ass.

    Give me something better or (at the very very least) equal for gtk2, and I’ll consider. Until then, no licensing issue will make myself reconsider.
17. 2005-08-06 12:30 pm

    Anonymous

    Much has been made about KDE being the only platform that forces one to pay to develop closed source apps (that isn’t true, more on that later). I see it in a different light. Gnome is the only platform that lets you use their work, giving them nothing for it, and then make money off of it. It’s very nice of them to not care if you do that, but why should KDE not care too?

    Nobody moans at MS or Apple for requiring something for the use of their toolkits, why does only Trolltech get dumped on? What’s that I hear you say? “You don’t have to pay to use the MS and Apple libraries!” I suppose in bizarro world where you don’t have to pay for the Operating Systems they come on that would be true.. *You payed for the OS.* MS or Apple received money from you for their work. You may have paid them less for it than you would have paid Trolltech for Qt, but anybody who uses your program also paid MS or Apple. Make no mistake, MS and Apple get money for the use of their libraries, their work isn’t done for free.

    Trolltech’s sole income is from the developers, not from the end users, so they have to charge a little more (though I start to doubt it is significantly more when looking at the cost of Windows Server 2003, Visual Studio or whatever and an MSDN subscription).

    So let’s get this straight, Trolltech is not alone in charging for the use of libraries. It’s just that MS and Apple do it in a more roundabout way through their practice of charging for the OS.

    If Gnome is happy with doing work without being paid for it and having people use that work to make a closed source app that benefits themselves only, fine. Same for BSD. But there is no room to fault Trolltech or KDE for not playing along. You want to use closed source to make some money, you have to pass some of the money back to the people who helped make it possible, same as with Windows or OSX (except that MS and Apple will charge you even if you aren’t out to make money, while Trolltech and KDE are happy to let you play for free if you give others the same privilege).

    If you think that’s unfair you have some warped ideas about getting something for nothing.
• 2005-08-06 2:59 pm

  rajan r

  “You don’t have to pay to use the MS and Apple libraries!” I suppose in bizarro world where you don’t have to pay for the Operating Systems they come on that would be true.. *You payed for the OS.* MS or Apple received money from you for their work. You may have paid them less for it than you would have paid Trolltech for Qt, but anybody who uses your program also paid MS or Apple.

  The license per developer for a single platform is $3300 for the desktop. Let’s compare with Apple: Mac OS X cost $129 per license. Vast difference there, aye? Though, admitably, Apple makes a bulk of their money from hardware sales. Microsoft sells Windows at retail for the professional edition at $300 retail. Even if you add MSDN membership (where there are open subscriptions so that the number of developers wouldn’t change the cost – around $2,700 for the universal subscription), it is rather negliable.

  Now, though Qt has many features Microsoft’s Visual Studio has (which cost $2,299 per license, less if more than four, for the professional ed – still less than Qt’s one platform).

  Yet as I said earlier, if a business can’t afford Qt, they are better off closing shop. However it doesn’t mean they ought to use Qt – they may figure the opportunity cost for other toolkits is lower and decide based on that.
18. 2005-08-06 12:41 pm

    Anonymous

    good article
19. 2005-08-06 1:10 pm

    Anonymous

    “I can write my program on Windows for free” and ” I can write my program for Mac OS X for free”

    That is just NOT true. You have to aquire Windows or OSX before you can start development. In KDE you can freely use KDevelop, even if you are creating commerciel Qt-applications. Start looking at the licenses for Visual Studio for example.

    Sorry, but I just cannot stand the fact that these people leave information out.
20. 2005-08-06 1:25 pm

    Anonymous

    I would be interested in seeing the BSD “switch” campaign show some figures. Desktop BSD is a particularly interesting phenomenon that is just getting started. Note I don’t count MacOS as a BSD in this sense, since it doesn’t qualify as a free software system by any stretch.

    Hmmm, I can’t see why you are saying “phenomenon” and “just getting”, while FreeBSD being used as desktop for years and it is much simplier to support.
• 2005-08-06 1:51 pm

  Anonymous

  Hmmm, I can’t see why you are saying “phenomenon” and “just getting”, while FreeBSD being used as desktop for years and it is much simplier to support.

  Really? Isn’t it pretty obvious that he’s talking about the recent proliferation of new FreeBSD-based distributions that especially focus on the needs of and cater to desktop users? Do we have to split every hair??
21. 2005-08-06 2:13 pm

    Yuske

    To me FOSS as Richard Stallman has set in motion with the GNU GPL is about the greater good of humanity as opposed to the selfish greed of a few people.

    Of course, it is ok if that greed comes from Qt, “oh the only one company with the righs to make money from FOSS is Qt”

    This guy is clueless.
• 2005-08-06 4:46 pm

  japail

  Yes, because charging a fee for proprietary usage of your toolkit is greedy, while expecting a company to let you freely use their assets for constructing your own proprietary software in order to make money is not.
22. 2005-08-06 2:39 pm

    rajan r

    So I believe there is some middle ground I think for Trolltech’s pricing to come down for ISVs. The bulk of ISVs are small companies, not the big corporations that Qt is apparently priced for. Also many small ISVs are groups within big companies that do not have unlimited budgets.

    According to Trolltech’s website [ http://www.trolltech.com/products/pricing.html ] – the very highest pricing is a one time payment of [drumroll] $6600 per developer! (That’s for three platforms for the desktop). If a small company considering creating propreitary software for the purpose of distribution – if they can’t afford that license, they seriously ought to rethink their business model.

    Because if not only they can’t afford the hefty pricetag in the offset, they obviously don’t have enough capital to survive to their break-even. More so, if their sales wouldn’t be able to cover what would quickly be a small part of the overhead, they would pull out ASAP – they wouldn’t be able to survive in the business world.

    P.S. GPL does not necessarily mean software linking to it also have to be GPL – it can be any one of the licenses FSF considers a “free software license” – which ranges from BSD to APL.
23. 2005-08-06 2:45 pm

    Yuske

    Because if not only they can’t afford the hefty pricetag in the offset, they obviously don’t have enough capital to survive to their break-even.

    You are cluelles and totally wrong, a company eith 5 developers would need 5 licences that would make expensive cost, hence expensive products, this would make unfair competence and products wouln’t sell as good a sit should.

    It really piss me off when adoctrinated people like you try to justify Trolltech and any cost, so I as a developer should close my bussiness just because I can’t affort a Qt licence? Screw Trolltech and his hypocrit double license.
24. 2005-08-06 2:49 pm

    Anonymous

    If adoption of KDE is hindered by its free licensing what then is GNOMES PROBLEM, as it has less people using it the KDE.

    AND THE STUPIDEST THING OF ALL, is you can run qt, gtk, gtk2, wxwidgets, real basic, or any other tool kit from with in KDE just like gnome, or windows.

    Will your stupid argument never end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Will you GNOME trolls never go away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    YES you can use KDE and not program in QT if you are a for profit business and dont want to pay a license!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    YES KDE IS FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    YES KDE IS GPL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    YES QT IS FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    YES QT IS GPL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
25. 2005-08-06 2:51 pm

    Anonymous

    I read both articles and have to say Eric Laffoon is skirting around the issue. Consider the following quote:

    “Let’s get to the meat of it. If you’re determined to develop a closed source application for Linux then a Qt license is likely not going to be more than 1%-2% of your total cost, assuming you’re serious and using full time developers. The argument has been put forward that Qt is the only platform that has a cost for commercial development on Linux. Since when was your time or the time of an employee free? My business experience taught me that cheap tools are a false economy. Anyone who looks at price instead of value is going to lose money.”

    This is how Windows became the dominate software development environment in the world! To develop for Windows is cheap! It is only recently that Microsoft raised the fees of their development environments. Yet, they still have some cheap environments kicking around.

    About the cheap being wrong, sorry this is just blowing wrong and entirely clueless. What is Walmart all about? For Europeans, what is Aldi all about? People want CHEAP because they can get cheap. This is part of our economy for the past two decades! Microsoft won with the PC because they were cheaper than the Mini’s at the time. Remember when Microsoft first came on the scene with DOS it was NOT better or better value! It was CHEAP!
26. 2005-08-06 2:51 pm

    Yuske

    And btw Timothy R. Butler is and hypocrit too, the raide GPL with that “corporative greed bs” at maximun but KDE libs are LGPL.

    This guy is getting pay by TrollTech.

    to me in these kind of cases Microsoft is more gentle than TrollTech, I really hope Qt never becomes the may stream for Linux commercial development.
27. 2005-08-06 2:56 pm

    Anonymous

    Who unleashes more FUD, GNOME or Microsoft.

    On Windows you can program in many enviorments regardless of what Windows was programed with.

    On Linux you can program in many enviorments regardless of what KDE or GNOME are programed with.

    THIS IS FUD pure and simple.
28. 2005-08-06 2:58 pm

    Yuske

    I as a developer don’t give a damn about desktop wars only about the tool kit so thate you “GNOME conspirancy” ELSE WHERE.
29. 2005-08-06 3:00 pm

    Anonymous

    Trolltech = Troll Tech

    So, I can say that the people at Trolltech are simply GPL trolls!
30. 2005-08-06 3:36 pm

    Jamie

    The answer is simple.- look at the most successful platform which has the most third party software available for it (ms windows).

    Do window developers have to pay microsoft a fee to develop a non-GPL windows application? Of course not!

    Windows programs (regardless of their license) incur no license fees at all – you are actually more free developing window apps than you are QT/KDE so of course any tax or fee here is counter productive and harmful to adoption. If it weren’t, MS would be taxing every developer out there!
31. 2005-08-06 3:44 pm

    Mystilleef

    But why shouldn’t they release it under whatever license pleases them? If I spend time, resources and effort to author software, what right do you have to tell me what license to use?
32. 2005-08-06 4:08 pm

    Anonymous

    The true reason why you don’t need to pay for use Microsoft’s MFC in your programs is that:

    1) You need to buy a windows license for every developer machine

    2) Althougth you can use a free compiler/language for windows development, most developers use proprietary and non-free IDEs and compilers like M$ Visual C++, M$ Visual Basic, Borland Delphi and son on. These softwares are not free and you have to buy one license for every developer you company has.

    Oh, people use pirated copies of Visual Basic and etc ? Why not to use a pirated copy of Qt ? It is illegal but if you don’t care about it you don’t care about pirate Qt also.

    3) Your clients will have to pay a windows license for run your proprietary application. Consequently, you have to charge less money for you commercial application because your client only think about the total amount he will have to spend. If you make a commercial linux application you client can use it on a $0 cost linux box and therefore you can charge more for it or you will sell more copies of your software because it will be cheaper for you clients.

    4) Don’t like Qt ? Use then GTK+, wxwidgets, Fox toolkit, etc. You have options for GUI development on linux.
• 2005-08-07 1:55 pm

  Anonymous

  Not to dismiss your point, as I think it is valid, it would be good to put numbers to all of this…

  1) You need to buy a windows license for every developer machine

  Windows XP Pro = About $300~ + shipping (boxed copy)

  Substantially less if bought with hardware, though the real cost is unknown on a machine-by-machine basis by the public. To them it looks ‘free’.

  2) Althougth you can use a free compiler/language for windows development, most developers use proprietary and non-free IDEs and compilers like M$ Visual C++, M$ Visual Basic, Borland Delphi and son on. These softwares are not free and you have to buy one license for every developer you company has.

  MS Visual C++ Pro = About $260~ + shipping.

  3) Your clients will have to pay a windows license for run your proprietary application.

  2x #1; About $300~, unknown but lower for OEM hardware bundles.

  Total: About $860~ retail, OEM total is likely $420 ($260 VC++ retail + 2x$80 for OEM Windows XP).

  The cost for QT is substantially higher;

  http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/pricing.html

  4) Don’t like Qt ? Use then GTK+, wxwidgets, Fox toolkit, etc. You have options for GUI development on linux.

  Exactly.

  One more point; Apple and Microsoft’s tools, while cheaper over all, do not allow cross-platform development. They are subsidized to encourage lockin.

  You use Apple’s tools for OSX, you use Microsoft’s tools for Windows…and this benifits both Apple’s and Microsoft’s platforms to the exclusion of other platforms. Porting with these tools is a real big deal.

  If you want your development to benifit all systems and for you to have the flexability to sell just about anywhere, QT should be seriously considered as porting becomes much much easier and if you are careful a gimmie.
• 2005-08-07 7:47 pm

  segedunum

  Windows XP Pro = About $300~ + shipping (boxed copy)

  MS Visual C++ Pro = About $260~ + shipping.

  2x #1; About $300~, unknown but lower for OEM hardware bundles.

  Total: About $860~ retail, OEM total is likely $420 ($260 VC++ retail + 2x$80 for OEM Windows XP).

  No actually. What you’re buying into has a far, far higher cost. You’re not just buying into Windows development tools, but the whole infrastructure you need to do it. Windows desktops, Windows servers, Office, Client Access Licenses, security problems….. By developing for Windows you ensure those costs stay in place. That’s why Microsoft is able to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes with these TCO studies.

  With Qt and a desktop Linux infrastructure you’re buying into something different, and you can start actually paying for stuff that makes sense.
• 2005-08-07 9:17 pm

  pravda

  With Qt and a desktop Linux infrastructure you’re buying into something different, and you can start actually paying for stuff that makes sense.

  This statement is very subjective.

  The small ISV does not want to pay for libraries that should be part of Qt but are high-priced add-ons. The entire pricing structure for Qt and the never-ending support costs that run $2000/yr for two-platforms PER DEVELOPER do not make for a good feeling. The real cost structure of Qt is way beyond any company except the mega corporations.

  Outside of Qt, any size ISV does not want to pay for hundreds of hours of testing on endless variations of Linux and all the infrastructure to support these variations.

  Any size ISV does not want to pay to support all the hundreds of variations of Linux.

  Any size ISV does not want to pay for “services” on how to use things because the developers don’t write good software or provide good docs or examples so they can suck your blood for “services”. This model does not scale and produces numerous “time to market” delays that may kill your business. It is just plain stupid.

  Yes some few ISVs are making Linux software. But as a percentage of total ISVs the percentage probably is no more than 1%. And most of the ISVs in Linux are giant multi-national corporations.

  For a small ISV or individual developer whose livelihood is the IP that is their code, Windows and Mac are the only platforms that they can make a profit. The development tools are reasonably priced and high value. There are many customers who believe in buying software. Sensible business models are there for entrepreneurs who want to create and innovate.

  In the Linux world with Qt, there will never be any significant number of small ISVs or individuals developing commercial software using Qt.

  The GPL destroys the ability of most individuals to make money being software developers. And the GPL edition of Qt on Windows is a pile of crap. It forces the developer to use shoddy tools (Ming etc) that simply have no place on Windows except to satisfy the religious beliefs of a few maniacs (misguided fools at best).

  Without beating this horse to death, there really is no ISV opportunity on Linux for small ISVs and individuals.

  The Linux platform is beginning to stumble as the vast universe of small ISVs and individual developers is what makes or breaks a platform. This force is what makes a platform come to life.

  Not a small number of crappy mega corps who provide low quality software so they can soak you for services.

  That GPL mega corp world is a world socialist wet dream. It is the end of individual opportunity for the software developer.

  And for many people all over the world, this GPL vision is definitely not a good thing for them. There is no room for hard work and invention. History has shown us this very clearly. Just ask anyone who lived in the USSR or “Eastern bloc”.
• 2005-08-08 3:28 pm

  segedunum

  The small ISV does not want to pay for libraries that should be part of Qt but are high-priced add-ons.

  What high-priced add-ons, and what do you think ISVs pay for now?

  The real cost structure of Qt is way beyond any company except the mega corporations.

  You haven’t seen what the average ISV spends on Java app servers, Visual Studio and partners services. If you have an application that actually makes proper money, keeps a roof over your head and keeps your cashflow ticking over, it is not unreasonable at all. The days of crappy shareware and small ISVs knocking together very poor software and expecting to make a living are over.

  In the Linux world with Qt, there will never be any significant number of small ISVs or individuals developing commercial software using Qt.

  There are significant numbers of ISVs using Qt, not enough on Linux, but that’s the way it is. The ISVs using totally free tools like GTK are non-existant, on Linux or otherwise.

  Without beating this horse to death, there really is no ISV opportunity on Linux for small ISVs and individuals.

  There isn’t much of an ISV market around Linux right now because of the relative demand, not because of any perceived licensing issues. If there was demand most companies would do it tomorrow, but it’s a chicken and egg scenario.

  There is no room for hard work and invention. History has shown us this very clearly.

  There certainly is. All that holds it back is demand, and certain other things which desktop Linux needs to get right like softeware installation.
33. 2005-08-06 4:12 pm

    Anonymous

    > You are cluelles and totally wrong, a company

    > eith 5 developers would need 5 licences that would > make expensive cost, hence expensive products,

    Sorry, but the clueless person here is you. “a company with 5 developers” — all of them doing GUI development????? Usually you would have one or two people in a company of that size who are responsible for the GUI stuff (and hence would need a license). If you have 5 GUI developer experts which all need a license then your company has GUI development as a core competence. In that case the investment of five development licenses would pay off pretty quickly as using Qt will save you quite some time compared to other solutions.

    I worked in a company which employed 10 people. And making my boss sign for a Windows/Linux Qt license was a matter of an eye blink. Looking at our results I’m sure that he wouldn’t hesitate to buy another license if necessary.
• 2005-08-07 11:20 am

  edomaur

  I abond in your sense. Years ago, I was working in a Borland Delphi shop. The licensing cost was around the same as Qt is now, for the same kind of products. Ok, we were using what is know called the Architect version of Delphi, for a price tag of ~$6000 per seat. For the same amount of money, I can write cross platform proprietary desktop apps.

  The fact is that Qt is not really expensive for an IDE of its kind, and more, for that money you get access to a bunch of helpful people, good documentation, and so on.

  More : you are not required to pay the price tag each year, nor are you required to buy the license each time you have a proprietary app.

  I think that Qt licensing is adequate. Really. I can write free apps, honing my skills without paying for this, and I can write as many apps as I have clients paying me to.
• 2005-08-07 11:36 am

  pravda

  I abond in your sense. Years ago, I was working in a Borland Delphi shop. The licensing cost was around the same as Qt is now, for the same kind of products. Ok, we were using what is know called the Architect version of Delphi, for a price tag of ~$6000 per seat. For the same amount of money, I can write cross platform proprietary desktop apps.

  The fact is that Qt is not really expensive for an IDE of its kind, and more, for that money you get access to a bunch of helpful people, good documentation, and so on.

  The Architect version of Delphi is *lightyears* ahead of Qt in functionality!

  And Delphi Architect is $2925, about the price of *single platform* edition of Qt.

  http://www.componentsource.com/Catalog.asp?fl=&sc=CS&bc=&cv=re&ul=e…

  Qt is *not* an IDE, not a visual database development environment, not a software modeling tool, not a source code control system, etc. Qt does not include the hundreds of components that Delphi does. Qt does not provide the clean Windows interfaces that Delphi does. The list goes on and on. Delphi is much more than Qt!

  At best Qt is a graphics framework and cross-platform C++ library. It is *barely* an application framework by modern standards of this term. There are *zero* development tools for Qt that compare to Delphi or Visual Studio.

  http://www.borland.com/us/products/delphi/index.html

  Comparing Qt to Delphi Architect is like comparing a mud hut to the Parthenon.

  The fact of the matter is undeniably that the commercial license of Qt is expensive. The price to own your code under Qt is a lot of money for most people.

  The price of Qt is beyond the reach of the small developer. There is a version of Delphi that the small developer can afford. There is an academic version for students and education.

  For all these versions, you can develop your own IP and sell it as closed source software. There is no “spit in the face of the small code developer” GPL requirement of the bogus Qt Open Source edition (that doesn’t even support Visual Studio on Windows). The “free” edition of Qt on Windows forces the small developer to use fucked up tools. Now ain’t that a privilege? Cruelty for free. God bless the GPL.

  And that really is it. Other tools give you the ability to build great apps at a reasonable price where you can be a *software developer* where the code is your IP vs. some sort of “service provider” where you have no IP. Qt does not.

  P.S. Sorry for the vulgar language. This comparison of a world-class development toolset to Qt was just too much for my delicate sensibilities to handle.
• 2005-08-07 12:06 pm

  edomaur

  “””P.S. Sorry for the vulgar language. This comparison of a world-class development toolset to Qt was just too much for my delicate sensibilities to handle.”””

  You should perhaps get your fact rght before launching a full scale invasion…

  Architect is actually $3,347.77 for the full license. It seams that it is in promotion these days.

  From the Qt4 page : “””The elegant Qt API includes a mature object model, a rich set of collection classes, and functionality for GUI programming, layout, database programming, networking, XML, internationalization, OpenGL integration and much more.”””

  http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/index.html

  Clearly it’s more than just a GUI framework. Or I am probably under some sort of delusion and only think having written networked apps in it.

  Ok, I admit freely that there is more tools into Delphi Architect that are not in Qt. But as a framwork, a cross platform framework, I think it does its job properly.

  As the GPL flamewar go, I really think this is better that having a toned-down proprietary IDE like some from Borland. Anyway : i do not want to buy Visual Studio for writting free apps, it does not make sense.
• 2005-08-07 12:27 pm

  pravda

  “””P.S. Sorry for the vulgar language. This comparison of a world-class development toolset to Qt was just too much for my delicate sensibilities to handle.”””

  You should perhaps get your fact rght before launching a full scale invasion…

  I just hate to see the work of all the fine people at Borland compared to something that I have used, Qt, and know is a steaming pile of crap compared to Delphi. Ooops. Vulgar language again. Rephrase. “Qt is primitive and dysfunctional compared to Delphi”.

  Architect is actually $3,347.77 for the full license. It seams that it is in promotion these days.

  The price is still comparable to a single platform of Qt. I think you can find it for the ~$3000 price I mentioned in my link if you shop around a bit. For Qt, there is no shopping around.

  From the Qt4 page : “””The elegant Qt API includes a mature object model, a rich set of collection classes, and functionality for GUI programming, layout, database programming, networking, XML, internationalization, OpenGL integration and much more.”””