Qt Could Go Proprietary, KDE Relationship and Qt-Based Free Software in Jeopardy

Re:Qt Could Go Proprietary, KDE Relationship and Qt-Based Fr... by lmm on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @06:25AM (#23389512)

> Assuming the terms and prices are fair and no "bad practices" are going on (no excessive EULA/DRM, no ads, no enforced subscriptions, no online requirement, etc.), how is that immoral?

The point is that proprietary software is inherently that kind of bad practice - it means users can't fix bugs they encounter, or can't share their bugfixes. This is particularly vexing when the vendor also disclaims all warranties on the software, which is usual practice - reserving the right to sell something broken and unfixable.

Compare e.g. car right-to-repair laws that require manufacturers to make their repair manuals available.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Qt Could Go Proprietary, KDE Relationship and Qt-Based Fr... by stormdennis on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @05:44PM (#23396714)

Thanks for calling my way of living immoral and then not having the decency to answer my question to you about how do it in a way that would mean I could ensure I get paid for coding and not get stolen from.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Qt Could Go Proprietary, KDE Relationship and Qt-Based Fr... by lmm on Wednesday June 03, 2020 @04:49AM (#23401377)

I mean, I work on custom software that my clients use in-house; my clients always get full source code and I bill them for my time. But I doubt that's particularly relevant to your situation.

I don't know what would work for you. If you're doing in-person support for your users, that may well be a lot more valuable than the software itself. Maybe that's a viable business, or maybe it isn't. Again, the world doesn't owe you a business model. If you're selling shrink-wrapped software then my honest opinion is that that business is dying (with or without the open-source movement) and it's better to get out of it.

[ Parent | on HN ]