[LarMachinarum]

Qt used to be what I used as well, but the licensing has become so repulsive for professional use that I now refuse to touch it now (not even for my open source side projects where this wouldn't be an issue).

Too bad the hopes from the early Nokia adoption days got smashed by MS mole Elop and the later owners of Qt.

[nextos]

Yeah, it's quite sad to see Qt on the N9 and, now, on SailfishOS.

We were robbed of a future with lightweight and responsive native apps. Android pales in comparison.

[hermitcrab]

I have a small business license which I use for developing 3 commercial application. It is ~$1000 per year and the licensing seems quite reasonable.

[Palomides]

why are you paying for a license? are there non-LGPL features you're using?

[hermitcrab]

Yes. I use the charts. But also my business is built on Qt, so it feels right to support them financially.

[ahartmetz]

The licensing barely changed, the only change is the scare tactics of the Qt Company. The only thing to do is not to get scared by such legally meaningless noise.

[ranger_danger]

We have no issues shipping both FOSS (LGPL) and proprietary solutions using Qt without having to pay any license fee... not sure what issues you're running into.

[rramadass]

> using Qt without having to pay any license fee...

Would you mind elaborating which Qt editions, linking etc. you use?

[ranger_danger]

We have been using the LGPL opensource version since the 4.x days including the latest 6.x, both static and dynamic linking.

[dabockster]

That's good to know. I'll have to look up those licenses another time.