I feel cheated.
-
@Kent-Dorfman said in I feel cheated.:
the .net dev model is really the most fair one in the industry: buy once, and use that version forever without restrictions on redistributables.
What about the LGPL perpetually free license for Qt?
Qt Doc Search for browsers: forum.qt.io/topic/35616/web-browser-extension-for-improved-doc-searches
-
@Kent-Dorfman Like almost everything in life, the listed licensing fees are basis for negotiation.
Contact the sales team, make it clear you want a license and aren't just trolling and stuff may or may not happen to your favor.
I don't agree with this approach, but its common practice throughout the world.
I personal always ask for the price I actually want, that might be why I'm so terrible and selling and rather (financially) poor x) -
@JKSH said in I feel cheated.:
@Kent-Dorfman said in I feel cheated.:
the .net dev model is really the most fair one in the industry: buy once, and use that version forever without restrictions on redistributables.
What about the LGPL perpetually free license for Qt?
The OP was about commercial licensing fees. the LGPL is still a fuzzy area that any company concerned about litigation would do well to stay away from. You too easily get into the "derivative works" issue. ...and really, commercial use should incur some sort of fee; just not the WindRiver model of paying, paying,and paying some more, ad infinitum.
-
@Kent-Dorfman said in I feel cheated.:
the LGPL is still a fuzzy area that any company concerned about litigation would do well to stay away from
I disagree, on both counts.
-
Monthly use fees are criminal
This cruel business world, everybody just wants to make money out of simple folks. What a criminals, demanding to be paid for their commercial product on their conditions, that is just outrageous.
-
@Kent-Dorfman said in I feel cheated.:
The OP was about commercial licensing fees. the LGPL is still a fuzzy area that any company concerned about litigation would do well to stay away from. You too easily get into the "derivative works" issue.
The LGPL was created for the very purpose of allowing a free library to be used in a proprietary project.
It also caters very well to those who want to use the library but cannot or don't want to pay the commercial licensing fee (and this solves the problem of a fee that's too high, no?)
...and really, commercial use should incur some sort of fee
I agree that if someone gains commercially from a library, they should reciprocate somehow. This reciprocation has traditionally been in the form of monetary payment (e.g. licensing fees) to the library's developers.
However, the dual-licensing model provides another option: To pay what you want (and pay however much or little you want) by contributing time, expertise, or code to the library's community/ecosystem. It doesn't have to be cash.
-
-
@Leonart13 said in I feel cheated.:
If you choose the second option, and it is not cash, what is it? Knowledge, advertising or something else. just don't understand
Like I said in my post, you can "pay" by contributing time, expertise, or code to the library's community/ecosystem. You could make publish your app under a Free and Open Source license to benefit others. You could submit patches for new features of bug fixes to Qt itself. You could give your time to teach others how to use Qt effectively.
-
@Kent-Dorfman said in I feel cheated.:
I know it's troll bait, but I do have to agree with the OP about licensing fees. Monthly use fees are criminal. Really, for as much as I hate windoze, the .net dev model is really the most fair one in the industry: buy once, and use that version forever without restrictions on redistributables.
+1. And Qt license used to work the same way in the past, too. Maybe it still does, I'm not sure.
