🚀 go-pugleaf

VHA PC Development <codifex@airmail.net> wrote:
> I was under the impression that QT was freely usable as a component base
> for those who released their software free of charge.  Conversely, if
> someone wanted to make a profit off of TrollTech's work on QT, then Troll
> would like a piece of that profit.  I'd say that was fair.  That way the
> best of both worlds could be had; free software and for (dare I say it)
> profit software.

Almost, but not quite.  You can make a profit from your work, but you
have to release your source.

The real problem (as I understand it) is that you can't modify the Qt
source then distribute your modified Qt.  This is partially alleviated
by Qt being a C++ library - if you want to modify a widget, you can
create a new one based on one of the old ones, but it doesn't deal with
bugfixes.

However - Troll have been pretty quick on bugs, and with the 
"Free Qt Foundation" (or whatever it's called) the "what if Troll goes
bust?" problem is not significant any more (except for Troll).

> I do however realize that if lots of programming is done based on a widget
> kit that is proprietary, then it may cause some problems in the future -
> that is why I would suggest that any entity creating software should make
> sure that it is easily portable to another toolkit via source code
> abstraction layer or encapsulation of said toolkit.

> Open Source means that the program isn't free but the source code is
> available for perusal?  Forgive my ignorance... :(

It goes further than that.  Open Source means that the source is open.  That
is, you can take the source and change it as you please.  This is why
Qt, despite having the source available, isn't really "Open Source".