undefined | Better HN

0 pointscycloptic6y ago0 comments

I don't believe that is the real pain point. The Company could resolve it easily by paying contributors in exchange for signing the CLA. What is more likely is that they can't afford to do this.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

Rochus6y ago· 2 in thread

That would be much too complicated. Just imagine such a model with OpenCV or some of the other big C++ frameworks. Selling framework licenses is just an outdated business model. It would make more sense to release the Qt framework under BSD and make money with add-on services (as other companies actually do successfully).

cyclopticOP6y ago

It doesn't seem that things being "much too complicated" is the issue when maintaining separate proprietary and open source forks is on the table. Although it's unclear if it actually is or not.

OpenCV (and many other open source frameworks) never had a CLA so this wouldn't be an issue for that. In my opinion there is nothing inherently wrong with dual-licensing but it's expensive and many companies do not have the resources to pull it off correctly. Re-releasing under the BSD license appears to be the backup plan if the Qt Company ever goes belly-up.

Rochus6y ago

> In my opinion there is nothing inherently wrong with dual-licensing

It significantly hampers cooperation. No company in its right mind would make a large investment for free in the development of software sold by another company. Without this unspeakable dual license, a balance is possible, i.e. the companies can invest and use without taking inadequat advantage of each other.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse