Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 14th Feb 2009 12:55 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 348996
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.
RE[7]: Google is not one company
by sbergman27 on Sat 14th Feb 2009 21:14
in reply to "RE[6]: Google is not one company"
If anything, Qt development is moving to a more open model with LGPL license
So, what about all those years we were told that QT was more Free because it was GPL instead of LGPL? I think the move is good. But isn't there a fair amount of crow to be eaten on the QT side? I'd like to observe the eating. Assuming that's not under NDA, too.
RE[8]: Google is not one company
by vivainio on Sat 14th Feb 2009 21:26
in reply to "RE[7]: Google is not one company"
So, what about all those years we were told that QT was more Free because it was GPL instead of LGPL?
Did anyone seriously believe that? ;-)
I think the move is good. But isn't there a fair amount of crow to be eaten on the QT side?
I don't really *know*, but I'd wager that it was not under LGPL because Trolltech was dependent of cash inflow in order to continue. This is no longer the case (Nokia can easily support Trolltech without another dime from Qt license revenues), and I don't assume the Trolltech chose GPL because of RMS-grade Free Software fanaticism. Quite on the contrary, since they were selling proprietary licenses at the same time.
RE[8]: Google is not one company
by leos on Sat 14th Feb 2009 23:36
in reply to "RE[7]: Google is not one company"
"If anything, Qt development is moving to a more open model with LGPL license
So, what about all those years we were told that QT was more Free because it was GPL instead of LGPL? "
GPL is more Free for the users, LGPL is more free for the developers. So it really depends how you look at it.
I think the move is good. But isn't there a fair amount of crow to be eaten on the QT side?
Why? If Qt had been LGPL from the start, Trolltech would have gone under years ago and we wouldn't have Qt anymore (at least not as advanced as it currently is). So you can't argue that their licensing model was a bad idea because it allowed them to continue putting resources into Qt development.
Now that Nokia doesn't depend on Qt license revenue to stay afloat, they can LGPL it to make it available to more people.





Member since:
2008-12-26
Of course you can hear about benefits of Qt - you just won't see what Nokia is up to as far as their products (phones) go immediately.
If anything, Qt development is moving to a more open model with LGPL license and other future changes to the development flow (acceptance of outside contributions without copyright assignment etc).