News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Verdigris: Qt without moc by kevin_thibedeau on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @04:47PM (#11772948)
> but mandating how code can be linked and excluding closed platforms (embedded, mobile) are horrible terms to have to adhere to.

Then you buy a commercial license. LGPL is serving it's purpose here just fine. Somebody has to pay for development. This is the incentive.

Re:Verdigris: Qt without moc by twshoopboop on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @05:42PM (#11773367)
Sure, that's why I said "I wish". I'm well aware of the $50-300+/month commercial development license. Qt is a high quality product and often worth the price tag. I'm not sure that the original intent of releasing it under LGPL was to use it as a means to push people to go commercial for certain platforms.

In the original announcement for LGPL as a license option:

"Adding LGPL version 2.1 will greatly increase adoption of Qt across Windows, Linux, embedded Linux, Mac, S60, Windows CE, maemo, and Ovi web services. Having a larger number of users, including Nokia developers, providing feedback and contributions will help Qt remain a cutting edge, robust UI and application framework."

To me it seems like the intent was to increase adoption (including in embedded and mobile), but after the recent Digia/Qt Company corporate changes you can tell there's been a shift in the way the LGPL is interpreted. For example, before they had guidelines on their wiki (back when qt-project was still around) on LGPL compliance for mobile platforms that basically said 'Android was okay'... but now if you look at their new guidelines on qt.io after they changed everything, they are pushing for commercial license adoption. I'm pretty sure that was the motivation behind the LPGLv2 -> v3 change as well.