Hacker News Reader

Comment by TobyTheDog123 | Hacker News Reader

>Attribution to Slint

Mmmm no thanks, I'll pass.

While I'm looking for a Flutter alternative, this seems like a trap.

We are not a charity and aim to operate on a sustainable development model. While we offer paid and GPL licensing options, we also provide a free-of-charge license that only requires attribution. If you are unwilling to provide even attribution, then Slint may not be the right choice for you.

Oh it's certainly not for me, no question about it.

Yet, it's curious that you compare Slint to LVGL/Flutter/Electron (I don't know about Qt) when none of them have this intrusive requirement.

--- >What's intrusive about it?

(a) Display the AboutSlint widget in an "About" screen or dialog that is accessible from the top level menu of the Application.

(b) Display the Slint attribution badge on a public webpage, where the binaries of your Application can be downloaded from, in such a way that it can be easily found by any visitor to that page.

(c) You may not remove or alter any license notices (including copyright notices, disclaimers of warranty, or limitations of liability) contained within the source code form of the Software.

(d) You allow SixtyFPS to use your Application on the website and in advertising materials of SixtyFPS as a reference and to display your logo and trademark for this purpose.

---

Please don't pretend like a/b/d aren't big asks by saying "you wont even provide attribution?"

Not a dev, but I've often seen software that acknowledge their dependencies in About sections and on their websites. Is that particularly intrusive? Especially given that you could always use the GPL too if you want.

This goes beyond that. I didn't see that list of requirements; some places only say "attribution."

I would have no problem listing a library in the About dialog, but dictating the use of special icons and then all of those other requirements goes further than I've seen in any similar product.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com