[mtndew4brkfst]

Anyone considering it will need to decide for themselves how to feel about it, but I think it's important to prospective users to highlight that the current licensing model for Slint requires either GPL3-compatible licensing of your work, advertising for Slint within your own software, or paying ongoing licensing fees and/or royalties.

https://github.com/slint-ui/slint/blob/master/FAQ.md#licensi...

I only mention this because those constraints are notably more restrictive than the vast majority of the Rust crate ecosystem.

I take no particular stance on whether this is a fair or good practice or about the technical suitability of Slint beyond this concern, I just think it's a hurdle for most people so they should be made aware early and often.

[ogoffart]

We're building Slint as a business. It takes a lot of time and effort to maintain and improve it. We're not looking to support users who want to use it in proprietary software and give absolutely nothing back, not even a small credit. That doesn’t feel like too much to ask. (Even the MIT license requires including a copyright notice.)

Honestly, it’s a bit sad that for some, using libraries for free isn't enough, they also expect to do so without even mentioning the project.

[OskarS]

I really like this model of ”GPL3, but commercial licenses available”. Means you can have a sustainable business without sacrificing open source. I wish it was more widespread, the prevalence of extremely permissive licenses has led to so many enormous companies using open source without giving back.