Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cycloptic 2266 days ago
Using the product while making a closed source application and contributing nothing (money or patches) back can hardly be construed as promoting open source. The "big money" that won't play ball is why they instead have the commercial licensing options.
1 comments
Rochus 2266 days ago
Nobody claims that. The problem today is that The Company only contributes a fraction to the maintenance and sells licences which includes work done by others. That's a pain point, isn't it?
link
cycloptic 2266 days ago
I don't believe that is the real pain point. The Company could resolve it easily by paying contributors in exchange for signing the CLA. What is more likely is that they can't afford to do this.
link
Rochus 2265 days ago
That would be much too complicated. Just imagine such a model with OpenCV or some of the other big C++ frameworks. Selling framework licenses is just an outdated business model. It would make more sense to release the Qt framework under BSD and make money with add-on services (as other companies actually do successfully).
link
cycloptic 2265 days ago
It doesn't seem that things being "much too complicated" is the issue when maintaining separate proprietary and open source forks is on the table. Although it's unclear if it actually is or not.

OpenCV (and many other open source frameworks) never had a CLA so this wouldn't be an issue for that. In my opinion there is nothing inherently wrong with dual-licensing but it's expensive and many companies do not have the resources to pull it off correctly. Re-releasing under the BSD license appears to be the backup plan if the Qt Company ever goes belly-up.

link
Rochus 2265 days ago
> In my opinion there is nothing inherently wrong with dual-licensing

It significantly hampers cooperation. No company in its right mind would make a large investment for free in the development of software sold by another company. Without this unspeakable dual license, a balance is possible, i.e. the companies can invest and use without taking inadequat advantage of each other.

link
cycloptic 2265 days ago
It doesn't have to be "for free". There is a simple solution I already mentioned, which is for the maintaining company to pay in exchange for getting the CLA signed. Serious long-term contributors should have this negotiation before making any large investment. Businesses can ask for royalties up to a cap, individual contributors are likely to get a salaried offer made up-front.

In the event of total failure of Qt's business model and reversion to a BSD license it is also very likely that there will not be much left of a market for big enterprise services around this type of product, so be careful with that double-edged sword. You might just end up with more fragmentation and internal proprietary forks to contend with. On the other hand, independent consulting will always remain an option as it is now.

link