A Better Qt Because of Open Source and KDE
olafsw.de
olafsw.de
Woah, I had no idea about this. I wonder what kind of new changes would take place if Qt were BSD licensed, such as languages like D embedding it as a solution for UIs as part of the standard library (they already do this for SQLite and Curl).
https://dlang.org/phobos/etc_c_sqlite3.html
For anybody's reference, it also has zlib, and an ODBC library.
Edit:
Did find this topic on the D forums:
https://forum.dlang.org/thread/sqrkjhzafvrycgdrzlxq@forum.dl...
I love that with Go I can do systems application development (think web, mail, etc). I wish D would just have a built-in web module / package. Vibe.d is nice and all, but built-in is better.
I doubt anyone in OSS communities is seriously deterred from using Qt because of the LGPL. It’s just a very big and very complex project that requires a lot of manpower to “tame”.
I guess you do make a fair point in regards to the LGPL though.
[0]: Here's an example of someone building only a minimal amount of Qt: https://github.com/dirtycold/qt-minimal-build
apparently, they forked from Qt 4.8 and QML is disabled in Copperspice. Ref:
https://www.copperspice.com/docs/cs_overview/timeline.html#t...
First, the core can be licensed under Commercial or LGPL licensing. This let's non-paying developers use the core in commercial software. This policy was established to ensure trust with the community during one of the many company transitions. For all new modules, Qt evades that requirement by licensing under Commercial or GPL. I have mixed feelings on this.
Second and more importantly, they have started sending aggressive audit letters to customers. I guess that makes sense from a bean-counter point of view where you poke the customer and try to get them to buy more licenses either because the customer actually needs the licenses, or because the customer is afraid to let any dev work without paying protection money. This is a huge pain in the neck for me as a paying customer. They even sent the aggressive audit letter to an old license we have that had not been renewed (or used) in around a decade.
I'll definitely be rethinking my relationship as a customer when the next renewal comes up.
I think (could be wrong) you meant to imply closed-source, as one can have commercial open-source software.
I’m not a huge fan of them using GPL for their newer modules, either, like charts. It seemed a bit unnecessary other than driving those who don’t like/can’t use the GPL license into a dev subscription.
Businesses will shovel loads of money into SaaS and cloud hosting without blinking, but support a programming tool? Never! Another hundred Office users and 50 more AWS VMs? No problem.
People will spend $10 on a coffee but would never spend $5 to support a project that saves them hundreds or thousands of hours of work. They'll spend $15/month to host a site, but would never pay for the software that runs it even though that took far more effort than racking up some servers.
No wonder everything is surveillanceware and mega-corp silos. We get what we pay for, or rather we don't get what we won't pay for... like independent software.
Avoiding the "out" makes me not want to make use of the new modules. And the hassle of audits makes be question the cost of the inconvenience to me, the dev, of having a license.
It's tradeoffs all the way down.
FOSS made it fashionable to want to be paid for work, while refusing to pay for the work of others, and in the process using clunky tools.
Naturally upstream cannot pay bills from PR and eventually moves on.
I'd like software to be free and open source for people and academic or non-profit uses, but I would like it if corporations for their use if they are using them in certain ways. Particularly problematic is the use of FOSS to power closed SaaS.
ZeroTier (of which I am the founder) just adopted the BSL toward this end, but the BSL isn't perfect. I think a better sort of license and maybe one more compatible with traditional FOSS needs to be developed. I'm chatting with a few people.
Unlike Nokia, which bought Qt and opened it to a more liberal license (LGPLv2.1) because it saw it as a strategic platform basis to attract developers to its platform (that is, until the MS shill Elop was injected as Nokia's CEO and destroyed the company… and sold Qt off)…
… unlike Nokia, the Digia-owned "Qt Company" (now publicly traded as QT-COM on Nasdaq Helsinki) sees Qt as a direct revenue source to monetize to the maximum and developers as milk cows to maximally squeeze out as long as possible. And unlike Nokia, Digia's "Qt Company" does so in a quite unsustainable way. They enormously increased the prices of commercial licenses to a level that can only be qualified as extortion, and they do whatever possible to force developers out of LGPL and into Pay-to-Play:
they switched Qt's open source edition from LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3… and they switched from LGPL to GPL or commercial only for most new modules, including QtQuick 3D.
The bottom line is: it's really going down the drain, and lots of developers of Qt-based programs and apps are drawn away and looking for something new. The need for a new modern and more liberally licensed cross-platform UI lib is bigger than ever.
Also, many devs are even switching out of Qt-based cross-platform development and back to separate codebases for OS-dependent native UI toolkits… which is kinda sad, though partly alleviated by some other factors (such as the similarities between Swift and Kotlin)
It is hard to sustain a business out of donations and patreons, not everyone enjoys counting pennies every month.
Also Qt is doing pretty well, thanks to enterprises, which still seem to value paying for developer tooling.
Got to learn that only enterprises or cloud walls work out.
Btw. Your claim that developers are switching is not true either. Qt use is increasing and it shows in the number of buying customers.
As if that was of any relevance to the question whether many Qt developers are switching. Given that commercial licenses are only used by a very small minority of the professional developers using Qt (most using open source Qt), themselves only a subset of all developers using Qt… the fact that that small minority is currently increasing while remaining a small minority… doesn't say anything about the proportion of still Qt using developers switching away.
Besides, the sustainability of a temporary increase of that minority is highly questionable. Of course QTCOM's pressure towards Pay-to-Play temporarily forces some of those who are still tied by all of their still-Qt-based code to buy Qt licenses as long as they haven't finished switching to a better alternative… but on the long term most of them quit too. Precisely because of that.
We'll see how that strategy of maximal monetization and maximally squeezing developers works out for QTCOM in the long term
Developers stop using Qt for good technical reasons in projects that don't require the unique features of Qt. Qt's strength is being multiplatform. It works in embedded and realtime operating systems. It's not even useful for scrape by contract workers who do better with free web framework/UI stuff. Your TV, car, Television, have Qt in them. Its in medical devices and industry automation.
Qt may lose market share for Adobe PhoneGap, React Native, Flutter, Xamarin but that's because those target restrictive subset of what Qt is good for. Again, it's for good technical reasons. Nothing to do with licenses or Qt being evil company.
> Your TV, car, Television, have Qt in them
no, actually neither has. And let's face it: while QTCOM does have clients in those domains… it doesn't have any huge share in either. Most use simpler lower-level graphical libs. Apart from that, you'll notice that those are Domains that account for a small minority of embedded… and a very unrepresentative one in that TVs, cars and TVs, unlike most of the embedded market, are stuff that are built by big corporations. So yeah, QTCOM seems to just focus on those big fish only now, as opposed to Nokia's strategy. As for industrial automation: don't make me laugh. Qt is totally irrelevant there.
And yes, licensing problems ARE a good reason which is a sore point, ESPECIALLY in embedded (where in most use cases you can't just dynamically link for LGPLv3 like on a desktop but have the whole mess of the build chain and update management if you are to let the user replace the Qt version).
If you work in embedded like me, you already know that we make actual money. Nobody cares about license cost of Qt. It's quite low compared to everything else. We don't use LGPLv3 in Qt. We buy commercial license.
what part of the thread did you not read? We've covered that already: the other option is the closed commercial license which since the switch from Nokia to QTCOM has become exorbitantly expensive
> Nobody cares about license cost of Qt (…) We don't use LGPLv3 in Qt. We buy commercial license.
You sound like you work in Qt Marketing, not in embedded.
> It's quite low compared to everything else
That's rather ridiculous. Most alternatives cost zero.
Here some figures: Nokia bought Trolltech and thus the intellectual property of Qt 4 for around 100 million Euros, and then released it to the public under LGPL. Nokia also payed for the development of Qt 4.4 to 5.0, and then "sold" everything to Digia for a piece of bread (about 4 Mio Euros). The contribution rate of Nokia was ~80% according to commit logs; the contribution rate of The Qt Company is at ~40% - and it's mostly on stuff important to them (i.e. which they can sell). So at least 50% are open source contributions by others. This information is all publicly available; you can read it yourself. So the Qt Company massively profited from this and should stop complaining and turning crooked things.
And they have to stop their u-boats, which act anonymously and make opinion.
EDIT: ok I see, your project is AGPL. But that just moves the issues to your clients; how do they solve the issue?
Is that the regular license FUD or what? I don't see which 3D module you're talking about.
[1] https://doc-snapshots.qt.io/qt5-5.14/qtquick3d-index.html
Dear Qt owners, don’t mess around. If you can’t make money from Qt, it’s not because of the license. Build more bridges, and more developers will come to you.
QT stock is up 124% this year, +247,06% last 3 years.
Qt has de facto monopoly in embedded, medical, automotive, appliance and industry automation. It works in Embedded Linux, INTEGRITY, QNX, and VxWorks.
Qt just launched Qt for MCUs (bare metal toolkit for low end microcontrollers). It runs on Cortex-M with several different 2D accelerators. It's yet another market with no serious competitors.
I suspect it has something to do with some 3d libraries and code they would like to include, but I don't know.
The point of going foss, in my long-distance bystander observation, is to create an essential part of the market: skilled developers. Not to push your sales to everyone’s face, nor to whine that deals are too cheap. Foss folks will never pay, because they are not business for client, they are people for people (who work for business and sometimes make tech decisions based on a weekend experience).
You still cannot be full-commercial and not have sap/oracle-like salesmen squad.
I think this is the reason of the timing of this post.
Because else, this post is just reminding the existing contracts around Qt.
Ironically, RedHat themselves sometimes make an exception, like the first link mentions:
> We reluctantly sign tolerable upstream project CLAs out of practical necessity.
Red-Hat is the biggest employer of Gtk/GNOME devs, so...
SuSE and Mandrake were historical the biggest ones that cared about KDE.
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/plasma-desktop
So I wonder if there is some kind of other blocker.
And regarding KDE and Qt. I wish Qt already would have Vulkan options instead of OpenGL, and KWin would use it as well.
Just some advice: public consensus is that if you don't want the bleeding edge of KDE, Kubuntu is basically just as good (KDE over Ubuntu) and reportedly is more compatible with various hardware — so if your laptop has issues with Neon, try Kubuntu as a nearly identical alternative.
Note that you can get KDE on any major distro, e.g. Fedora, Arch. I can't recommend it enough, KDE is the dream DE — great out-of-the-box, but settings for pretty much everything, set each once and then forget it as it gets out of your way without sacrificing any feature whatsoever. There are a few minor glitches, but much less so than Gnome or MacOS or Win 10 in my anecdotal experience (notwithstanding display support, that's driver-related and whole other ballgame).
So hardware support really should be identical.
Disclaimer: I package the KDE software stack for another distribution (openSUSE).
You could add the repos yourself to Ubuntu and have something very similar, but the way it is distributed, it is absolutely a distro.
It is certainly not the official, canonical KDE distro in any way, it is just a good distro with phenomenal KDE integration.