Re: libQtCore licensing ?

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Re: libQtCore licensing ?
by Matthias Ettrich on Sunday 11/Jul/2004, @12:28

I did? I don't even remember having spoken about it, but ok, I might just as well.

The dual-licensing model is based on a simple principle: quid pro quo. Either you give back in terms of code (by being part of an open source community that shares code and knowledge) or you give back in terms of money (by buying a license). The model cannot work with the LGPL, thus we will not do it.

I understand the request was about libQtCore only, but to me there is no difference in principle between libQtCore and other Qt libraries. They both require work to write and maintain, and they both reduce work when being used.

It's a bit like Robin Hood. He could only give to the poor because he took it from the rich. He would probably have gotten great publicity had he given to both the rich and the poor, but I doubt his business would have made it through the dotcom bubble with constant growth, or even be profitable today.

Related Links

·   Articles on Qt
·   Also by Matthias Ettrich
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: libQtCore licensing ?
by Eric Laffoon on Monday 12/Jul/2004, @08:31

> It's a bit like Robin Hood. He could only give to the poor because he took it from the rich. He would probably have gotten great publicity had he given to both the rich and the poor, but I doubt his business would have made it through the dotcom bubble with constant growth, or even be profitable today.

LMAO!

One can only speculate whether Robin Hood's business model changed or Nottingham's social programs reduced demand. It's possible too that Scottland Yard and Interpol discouraged this romantic tradition, or nobles only carry plastic nowadays. In any event now that Robin Hood is not publicly traded we cannot review his quarterlies and know for sure.

Of course today many of us who follow this noble tradition today are forced to ask the rich to participate, and unfortunately almost nobody thinks they are rich. I wept because I had no 64 bit processor to compile what I downloaded on my DSL... and then I saw the man with a 200 MHz Pentium on a dialup. There but by the grace of a few thousand bogomips go I...

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: libQtCore licensing ?
by aleXXX on Tuesday 13/Jul/2004, @10:40

Ok.
Now that libqt is split, will also the commercial license be split (i.e. will it be possible to buy only a QtCore license) ?

Alex

P.S. I still think getting commercial developers hooked with a LGPL QtCore so that they can't live without a commercial QtGui anymore wouldn't hurt Trolltech's business

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"coffee? kde developers drink tea ;)" -- Dirk Mueller
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.