On Sunday 05 July 2015 14:05:46 Kate Alhola wrote:
> > 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.
You're basically saying that we should add yet another licence to Qt's current
tri-licensing scheme:
* LGPLv2.1
* GPLv3
* Commercial/Enterprise
* Indie Mobile
Is that it?
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
