Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th May 2008 08:54 UTC, submitted by elsewhere
Yesterday, Trolltech released the final version of Qt 4.4, their graphical toolkit which forms the base for, among a lot of other things, the KDE project. It still features the dual-license model (of course), so proprietary developers can license Qt, while open source developers can get a GPLd version (both GPL 2 as well as 3). Read on for a quick overview of the new features, as well as some findings by Ars Technica.
Thread beginning with comment 313282
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-07-26
If you are going to use Qt in a closed, commercial, for-your-profit application[...]
If you are going to use Qt in a give-code-back-to-the-developer-community open source application[...]
If you are going to use Qt in a give-code-back-to-the-developer-community open source application[...]
You forgot another one.
If you're going to use Qt in your for profit company for in-house code you can use the open source edition too.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution
To me, that is pretty clear.
Others may even say, but I wouldn't wanna try it, that you don't have to buy the commercial license to dynamically link to it and sell commercial software.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#The_GPL_in_...
That one, is not so clear cut.
Member since:2005-11-18
What exactly is wrong with the dual-licensing policy?
There are some other good GUI toolkits with licenses that allow both use in free software and proprietary software. So, this can be an advantage of some toolkits other than Qt.
It seems like a perfectly fair arrangement to me.
This starts to look like a straw man
, I never said their arrangement unfair. Troll Tech created Qt, so it's their call to draw the lines. But this, and the other properties of Qt I mentioned make it less attractive to me, and possibly others. Remember, not everybody is an absolutist
. Edited 2008-05-07 18:59 UTC
Member since:2005-07-07
There are some other good GUI toolkits with licenses that allow both use in free software and proprietary software.
Qt can also be used in free software as well as proprietary software. I am absolutely certain because I use it for free software as a KDE developer and for proprietary software as a developer in a software company.
Actually some of the alternatives have only plain LGPL licences, which means it is not possible to link them or parts of them statically into a product without distributing all the rest as relinkable object files as well.
There is no way our management would approve these.
Member since:2007-02-17
"What exactly is wrong with the dual-licensing policy?
There are some other good GUI toolkits with licenses that allow both use in free software and proprietary software. So, this can be an advantage of some toolkits other than Qt. " Buy a license for Qt, and it allows you to use it in both free software and in commercial software.
Don't buy a license for Qt, and it allows you to use it in free software.
I can't see any particular advantage there for other toolkits ... Visual Studio requires you to buy a license does it not?
There are I believe some no-cost toolkits that can be used for both free software and for commercial software (Tcl? GTK+? FLTK) ... but AFAIK these have nowhere near the power and capability of Qt. I wouldn't have said they qualified as "good GUI toolkits" to the same standard as Qt provides.
But ... by all means enlighten us. What are these other toolkits of equivalent features that are better options than Qt because of their licensing?
Mono + GTK# perhaps? Is it really better? Is it really unrestricted?
Edited 2008-05-08 04:53 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
This starts to look like a straw man
There's nothing straw man about it.
But this, and the other properties of Qt I mentioned make it less attractive to me, and possibly others.
Then that's a decision you'll have to make yourself. Quite frankly, the STL and libraries like Boost are often complained about as a reason why people just don't like C++.
Remember, not everybody is an absolutist .
. I'm not entirely sure what you think locks you into Qt. The only thing you can be talking about is the development effort you put in with Qt, but that's true of all libraries you might use.
Member since:2005-07-09
There are some other good GUI toolkits with licenses that allow both use in free software and proprietary software. So, this can be an advantage of some toolkits other than Qt.
It's more complicated than that. At face value, it seems like a disadvantage that Qt costs money for commercial development. However, this price gives you commercial support and some promises of future viability. This is an investment in your tool and your tool makes your work easier and more efficient - so this will give some returns. If you were to pay $0 for a toolkit which would stop being developed or advancing at a reasonable rate after your project is far along, dealing with the situation would probably be even more expensive.
Edited 2008-05-08 22:37 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
BTW, I wonder recently about one thing about Qt licensing.
AFAIK if you want to do closed-source app, you have start with bought Qt license right away, you can't tinker for some time with GPL version and, seeing that it's a viable project and works out nicely, buy commercial license then.
But...what if later, at some point, rms preaching will make you feel guilty and you'd like to GPL app that was developed, up to this point, using commercial Qt license?
(I'm sure this is answered somewhere, but I'm on mobile acces currently and this seems ontopic...)
Member since:2005-09-21
AFAIK if you want to do closed-source app, you have start with bought Qt license right away, you can't tinker for some time with GPL version and, seeing that it's a viable project and works out nicely, buy commercial license then.
That's correct, although as long as you don't release your code publicly first and then try to close it, I'm sure they won't mind your small in-house experiments you did before buying a license. Technically the license forbids it, but Trolltech aren't idiots and will overlook some things there.
But...what if later, at some point, rms preaching will make you feel guilty and you'd like to GPL app that was developed, up to this point, using commercial Qt license?
and you'd like to GPL app that was developed, up to this point, using commercial Qt license? No problem. If you buy a commercial license, you can release your program under any license you wish, free or proprietary.
Member since:
2007-02-17
What exactly is wrong with the dual-licensing policy?
If you are going to use Qt in a closed, commercial, for-your-profit application, you have to pay Trolltech a license for using Qt as part of your product. This is the same deal as with any other commercial toolkit.
If you are going to use Qt in a give-code-back-to-the-developer-community open source application, then Trolltech are happy that you need pay them no license fee for that.
It seems like a perfectly fair arrangement to me.
Edited 2008-05-07 14:49 UTC