On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 12:04 -0700, jdow wrote: > From: "Peter Gordon" <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > jdow wrote: > > >> By the way, has anybody noticed how much a license for Qt costs if > >> you want to get PAID for software you right? I might as well simply > >> get an MSDN license and develop for XP. Ditto with respect to the > >> RHEL costs. They cost MORE than XP in the long run. > > Qt and RHEL are both Free/Open-source. You do not necessarily need to > > pay any licensing fees to make money on either of them. (Though, for > > RHEL, you do have to remove the trademarked artwork and stuff before > > you can redistribute it, with or without charging a fee for that > > copying.) > > Reread the Qt license, Peter. If you have developed any software that > uses Qt in any way (ie. for KDE) you MUST purchase a commercial license > from TrollTech. And it is NOT cheap if you are a small developer. ---- I note that you didn't provide a specific reference. This reference would have me feeling that your commentary is wrong... http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/opensource ---- > > (And with the current GPL nonsense I am STRONGLY disinclined to > perform any serious development that surrounds me with its level of > uncertainty over my legal liabilities for wanting to have bread on > my table. So I grit my teeth and develop for Windows.) ---- GPL isn't nonsense...it's a license. As a software developer, you can choose the license that you want for the software you write. Of course, you may not borrow other GPL code into the software you write unless you release the software as GPL too. Of course, if you choose not to use GPL or other 'free' license, you must pay for qt if you use qt to write the code. Those are choices that you make. The notion that you 'grit your teeth and develop for Windows' suggests that all is not perfect in that environment either. Craig
