Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Jul 2005 14:00 UTC, submitted by Timothy R. Butler
GNU, GPL, Open Source Tim Butler knew when he mentioned something negative about the GNU Project's General Public License (GPL), in his column on KDE last week, he would inevitably be accused of arguing the GPL was a bad license. What did not fit into that piece shall now be dealt with: is the GPL a bad license or is the issue he complained about something else?
Thread beginning with comment 3633
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Qt Licensing
by amadeo on Wed 13th Jul 2005 16:09 UTC
Member since:

Qt Licensing scheme is extremely conforting for proprietary developers as:

- You don't pay royalties: you know how much it is going to cost. You are free to ship as many copies of your
Qt-based app as you wish.
- You get a professional product that just works on many platforms.
- Now starting with Qt4, you get the KDE classes for free (as they are lgpl).
- There is the FreeQt foundation which ensures there will be continuity in the platform

And more recently:

- You get the right to modify the Qt source code, if necessary, in the future, and without paying anything.

For free software developers:

- You get a professional tool, which is free software, the right to for it, the FreeQt foundation, the kde libs, and starting with KDE4, real support for win in addition to Mac and Unix.

There are already free software Qt apps, previously unavailable in natively on windows being released:

KDE apps will follow soon.

Conclusion: Qt is a winner, both for proprietary and (especially) for free software development.

For free software development, it is a no brainer; C++/Qt is much more productive, supported, advanced, and bug free in more platforms than C/Gtk.

Reply Score: 1