Linked by Andrew Youll on Sat 6th Aug 2005 08:30 UTC, submitted by tbutler
Qt In a series of articles (part I, part II) during the month of July, OfB's Timothy R. Butler explained why he felt that KDE needed to move beyond the Qt toolkit it uses as a foundation. In that series, he asserted that the licensing of Qt is becoming a stumbling block to the desktop's adoption. Eric Laffoon, the project lead for KDE's Kdewebdev module, takes exception to Butler's arguments and makes the case for his view on the issue of Qt at
Thread beginning with comment 14341
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Unless...
by remenic on Sat 6th Aug 2005 10:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Unless..."
Member since:

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Unless...
by remenic on Sat 6th Aug 2005 10:14 in reply to "RE[2]: Unless..."
remenic Member since:

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 ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1