back

by Rochus·6y ago·view on hn ↗
> IMHO, if they lose this ...

If The Qt Company discontinued the FOSS version of Qt, the Qt framework would become available under the BSD license, and there would no longer be a contributor licence agreement allowing a company to sell the work of another company.

> in addition to all the third-party contributions, which are a small, but not insignificant portion of the Qt code.

In the last years more than 50% were open source contributions. At Nokia times they were only 10 to 20%.

2 comments
If The Qt Company discontinued the FOSS version of Qt, the Qt framework would become available under the BSD license, and there would no longer be a contributor licence agreement allowing a company to sell the work of another company.

But the rumors were that the Qt Company planned to do the minimum necessary to satisfy KDE Free Qt Foundation agreement, namely to release the source 12 months after release of the proprietary version. So, then Qt would not become available under the BSD license.

I'm sure you'll have a couple of shysters in tow trying to turn it this way. But at the end of the day (i.e. in court) only the effective will of the parties counts, no matter what (possibly wrong) wording was used in the contract. Unfortunately, KDE is not expected to go to court. The Company will take advantage of this.
> In the last years more than 50% were open source contributions. At Nokia times they were only 10 to 20%.

Oh, okay, that's grown! I was still thinking of Nokia-era figures :).