It was a business mistake by the Nokia in 2009 to offer the non-commercial version of Qt as LGPL. They should just have continued using GPL.
It was a business mistake by the Nokia in 2009 to offer the non-commercial version of Qt as LGPL. They should just have continued using GPL.
I don't think so. At the time I'm sure their goal was to have Qt as the development platform for all their phone hardware in time, while the profit would have come from phone sales. Using LGPL would have encouraged adoption by all developers.
What they didn't know in 2009 was that their hardware business will collapse. Or be collapsed.
While Autodesk is a big company, I could see trying to use a commercial licence as impractical for them. If they tried, what would it mean for their no cost editions, what would it mean for their plugin developers, what would it mean for their customers who do custom development on to of it? I think the paid licenses would be a disaster in all cases.
>> The core libraries of Qt (Essentials) and all existing LGPL-licensed Qt add-ons must continue to be available under the LGPLv3.
https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-lesser-general-public-...
How are Tesla using it? If it’s in their cars, how do they comply with this?