Why do you assume I'm paying someone a salary? I don't even make enough to cover my expenses (just started going indie). For someone like me, $149/mo is way too steep no matter what other options are. It just tells me qt is not an option for me.

As stated in other reply, open source option not an option as it states I can't publish it in app stores.

I'm pretty sure that's just a consequence of the LGPL, static linking and how 'app stores' choose to distribute software. If don't want to share your code in a format that allows it to be linked to other versions of Qt, you can't distribute your binaries statically linked to Qt (without paying.)

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10130143/gpl-lgpl-and-sta...

You can almost certainly just use the LGPL/free version with whatever you are doing on the desktop. So I would say it's still an option.

You would mostly need the commercial version only for mobile deployment due to LGPL having issues with static linking. Support for natively compiled Qt Quick is also a bonus.

You could use the LGPL version during development and only switch to the commercial license once you go live.

Has the commercial agreement been changed? The terms of the commercial license specifically prohibited that.

It does? But I thought it is possible to use the LGPL version to develop apps. It is just not possible to distribute them through the app stores because of the app stores, not because of Qt. You don't use the app store to deploy the development version of your app onto you development device.

That's all true. However, the commercial license included this:

"You must purchase a Qt Commercial Developer License from us or from one of our authorized resellers before you start developing commercial software. The Qt Commercial Developer License does not allow the incorporation of code developed with the Qt GNU LGPL v. 2.1 or GNU GPL v. 3.0 license versions into a commercial product."

Basically, you have to choose LGPL or commercial before you start your project. You can only transition from commercial to LGPL, not LGPL to commercial.

They do that to prevent specifically the thing you're suggesting, though they're probably aiming it more at large companies with many developers, so those guys don't just buy 1 license.

Ah, I see.

> If you are non-professional, why not use the open source edition and add value with support?

It might be me as I am not a native English speaker but I think "non-commercial" is more accurate than "non-professional" as people can write free software rather professionally and they often do.