> On 05 Jul 2015, at 09:05, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: > >> On Saturday 04 July 2015 21:36:29 Kate Alhola wrote: >> But i proposed alternative that does not cost anything but may bring a lot >> of profits later. > > I think you're wrong. There's a cost associated with the program, at least to > keep the website running, with the online store and registration, and someone > to look over the activity. The cost is not zero.
I know, selling Indie developer licence has costs but for that reason I proposed just amendment tom LGPL that allows use of Qt in certain mobile closed source apps when monthly revenue is under 10000€. There is no need any extra work compared to LGPL. If someone wants violate licence, they can do it with LGPL. There is no more need for looking over than in LGPL cases. Kate _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
