Qt offering changes 2020

[Pepan]

https://www.qt.io/blog/qt-offering-changes-2020
How will this affect KDE? For example Kde neon or Kbuntu LTS

[kubicle]

Unlikely to have any effect. Linux distributors compile qt from source (and there is no limitation for source downloads, only binaries). And KDE doesn't stick with LTS Qt versions (but moves to the newest version fairly quickly).

Shouldn't affect open source software development (still available under GPL and LGPL, and always will be), but might create problems for someone who has used qt binaries in their closed source software (without the commercial license, illegally), because qt can track who downloads the binaries (since you need an accout to download the binaries)...the binaries are also still GPL and LGPL, if you can abide by those licenses, you just need an account to download them...you only need the commercial license if you use Qt in a way that is incompatible with the GPL/LGPL licenses [in other words, embedded in closed source software that you distribute], which is basically their business model, and always has been).

There is nothing there to warrant a tinfoil hat. Qt absolutely relies on contributions from open source users of Qt to improve their product (they can't effectively do it all in-house), so it's not in their business interest to limit the open source usage of their products (since it's used under GPL and LGPL, they get all the patches and modifications back to improve their product...this not the case when someone buys a commercial license and uses Qt in non-free software, so they take their money from those users).

[WWDERW]

Unlikely to have any effect. Linux distributors compile qt from source (and there is no limitation for source downloads, only binaries). And KDE doesn't stick with LTS Qt versions (but moves to the newest version fairly quickly).

Unfortunately, one of the main devs on Krita didn't have the best of blog posts about this move. While I do have my preferences for DEs (and this one being one of my favs), I can easily move about to others, but individual programs that this would affect that's something else.

[kubicle]

Unfortunately, one of the main devs on Krita didn't have the best of blog posts about this move. While I do have my preferences for DEs (and this one being one of my favs), I can easily move about to others, but individual programs that this would affect that's something else.

I'm sure every dev has their opinions to which they are of course entitled to (here's another from a kde dev: https://tsdgeos.blogspot.com/2020/01...ng-qt-lts.html)

But I don't really see how this could affect krita (are they using qt binaries from qt for their windows version of krita or what? And so they would need an account to download them?). The blog post is critical, sure, but I don't see any explanation why this would change krita development one way or another. Perhaps there is a reason, but I don't see it (and the developer doesn't really offer it in his post EDIT: after re-reading it seems the main gripe is for the lack of Qt LTS, which distributions don't really use and have done quite well without in the past, but I guess I could see how that could create extra work for some devs if you rely on the same version of qt for a long time, but that shouldn't really be an unsolvable issue.)

[WWDERW]

I've always taken it to be a licensing issue first and maybe that dealt also with LTS as well as a secondary concern. I've always been cautious with the licensing tango that seems to be going on here.

Krita does tend to move fairly quickly with Qt releases and if I recall correctly, a time or two (within the latest versions, otherwise I probably wouldn't have any memory of it) they had issues with that migration and it was determined to be more Qt related and had to send in patches. That would probably go into that LTS concern as well.

[kubicle]

I've always taken it to be a licensing issue

Could certainly be, but then it should be made clear what licensing issues they see as relevant, I see nothing in the announcement that breaks the GPL/LGPL.

One can charge for software under the GPL/LGPL (or demand an account to access them)...which is basically what Red Hat does with it's enterprise linux...it also doesn't say you have to provide long term support (for free or paid). You just can't put restrictions on what people do with the binaries (or the source you have to provide) as long as they also follow the GPL/LGPL (so they can build, patch, modify and distribute freely if they choose to).

Accusations of "not playing nicely" is IMO more a matter of opinion (or of the point-of-view) rather than a legal licensing issue.

[WWDERW]

I think it's more of a concern that due to the arrangement that is in place, if Qt doesn't release a version that is GPL/LGPL it reverts to another licensing schema. The author even makes note that the announcement doesn't in of itself violate existing arrangements, the author sees this as pushing to see how far they may be able to go with current arrangements and the author is prognosticating that a change is bound to happen.

[kubicle]

I think it's more of a concern that due to the arrangement that is in place, if Qt doesn't release a version that is GPL/LGPL it reverts to another licensing schema. The author even makes note that the announcement doesn't in of itself violate existing arrangements, the author sees this as pushing to see how far they may be able to go with current arrangements and the author is prognosticating that a change is bound to happen.

The Qt Company is not going risk breaking the terms of the qt-free foundation agreement, which would mean that Qt would be released under the BSD license. This would make Qt free-for-all-for-any-purpose, and effectively end their "monopoly of commercial licensing", which would probably mean the death of the company, but obviously not of Qt.

[WWDERW]

The Qt Company is not going risk breaking the terms of the qt-free foundation agreement,

Agreements are broken all the time. It depends on if the C/B ratio is worth it or not.

This would make Qt free-for-all-for-any-purpose, and effectively end their "monopoly of commercial licensing", which would probably mean the death of the company, but obviously not of Qt.

But then one has to wonder about continued work on the project. It may not be that much of an issue, but when there is typically a company backing something, there is believed to be more stability then totally left to individuals and how that affects how things are kept up (if they are) and the speed of which they are kept up. Now, there is always a risk that even if a company backs something, they could pull out and the same issue could still be there. That would be my concern. It may not be a very big one in reality, but I'm always one of those that is very risk adverse, so I try to plan ahead.

[kubicle]

Agreements are broken all the time. It depends on if the C/B ratio is worth it or not.

Of course, that's why I tried to explain (in the next sentence, perhaps unsuccessfully) why they wouldn't risk it. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose in doing so.

But then one has to wonder about continued work on the project. It may not be that much of an issue, but when there is typically a company backing something, there is believed to be more stability then totally left to individuals and how that affects how things are kept up (if they are) and the speed of which they are kept up. Now, there is always a risk that even if a company backs something, they could pull out and the same issue could still be there. That would be my concern. It may not be a very big one in reality, but I'm always one of those that is very risk adverse, so I try to plan ahead.

I'd estimate that most contributions to Qt come from other companies (using Qt). The Qt company is quite small considering how widely Qt is used. There would be a large number of adopters if Qt comes free-for-all. Of course this is something a non-insignificant amount of developers might prefer, so there is a chance that people are smelling (or hoping for) a possible opening here.

[GreyGeek]

These agreements cannot be thrown away by the Qt Company without considerable legal and financial harm:

https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/...foundation.php

https://dot.kde.org/2016/01/13/qt-gu...3-legal-update

I began using Qt in 2004 when I was coding for the Dept of Revenue and they paid Tolltech $799/yr for my seat. Qt Company's current charge of $499/yr/seat is trivial for a professional programmer. I spent that much fueling a six hour round trip flight in a Centurion 206 for business purposes. My annual $1M indemnity bond cost $250/yr. It's just the cost of doing business.

The real downer is that the offline installer (Qt SDK) will no longer be available for personal or non-commercial use. However, one can get the source code from https://wiki.qt.io/Building_Qt_5_fro...he_source_code and building the binaries from the source looks easy enough.

Qt5 and qtcreator binaries are in the repository.