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