Trolltech Discontinue Non-Commercial Qt

An anonymous reader submits "Trolltech has quietly discontinued their non-commercial version of Qt for Windows. This eliminates Qt as a choice for those wanting to develop free multi-platform software." Actually, according to the linked page, "if you write Free software (Open Source software covered by the GPL) you are welcome to download and use the Free Edition of Qt," and Trolltech points out that one can buy the current edition of Qt -- seems fair enough.

Comments

Perhaps they are waiting for the Bill?

[leonbrooks]

When Microsoft get around to Freeing Windows, perhaps TrollTech will Free the Windows version of Qt?

As another poster points out, wxWindows does a lot of the Qt stuff in the WIMP arena, and I'd like to add that systems like libSDL pretty much cover the unWIMPy, less structured stuff anyway. Having a spectrum of alternatives is good, and since the smallest disk I can buy these days without going out of my way is 40GB, I don't have a problem with installing a dozen or so sets of libraries.

Re:Perhaps they are waiting for the Bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, so that clearly explains why it's available for Mac OS but not MS Windows.

I must be missing something here...

[shadow255]

From the QT website:

If you write Free software (Open Source software covered by the GPL) you are welcome to download and use the Free Edition of Qt

Since there is no Free Edition of Qt for the Windows platform, is Trolltech making some kind of statement that Free software does not exist for Windows? I can think of an example off the top of my head of a GPL program which is available only on Win32: FileZilla.

I'm not saying Trolltech is obligated to make a Qt Free edition for Windows, but perhaps they should word things a bit differently on their website, along the lines of "If you write Free software for X11/Mac..." It's just plain misleading, to my thinking, to state it the way they are.

Re:Corrections to Timothy's $0.02

[Brandybuck]

After all, cross-platform Open Source software can't possibly succeed, can it?

How much money has GTK+ made for GNU? How much money has LGPL wxWindows made? How about plain XFree86? I'm not talking about donations from Redhat or SuSE, I'm talking about actual revenue from actual customers. Now ask yourself if that's enough to support even one full time developer?

I do wish that Trolltech would release a QPL/GPL version of Qt for Windows. But they'll still have to charge proprietary prices for proprietary development if they want to stay in business.

MSRP of Microsoft Visual C++ .NET Standard Edition: US$109. MSRP of Qt/Windows Professional Edition: US$1550.

Rather than repeat the tired cliche about apples and oranges, let me merely remind you that filet mignon costs a lot more than canned tuna, yet no one complains about the discriminatory and punitive pricing of fine steaks.

Somebody port it, then

[__past__]

Didn't somebody recently announce a new effort to port the Free version of Gt/X11 to Windows?

That might help even if the project won't get finished itself. Remember the Big Qt/KDE Licensing Flamewar? Seeing both Gnome and Project Harmony, a free Qt clone, being developed because many people considered the old QPL to be not acceptable for the base of a free desktop, Trolltech gave in and adopted the current dual licence scheme. With a free port to Windows, and other cross-platform toolkits being available (and getting more support, like Borland now using wxWindows after having used Qt for Kylix), they might reconsider not offering a free version for Windows themselves.

Or we can all just get along and use one of the other fine cross-platform toolkits.

Re:Corrections to Timothy's $0.02

[angel'o'sphere]

What makes them think that taking the low road like that will convince Windows devlopers to consider Qt?


I stopped developing for windows about 5 or 6 years ago. That was when the cross platform GUI library zApp got discontinued.

If the prices you point out are correct, I would definitly consider using Qt if I was "forced" to code for windows and was forced to use C++.

Of course I would prefere Java and SWING :-) And also: I cant be forced, LOL. Anyway my point is: Qt costs currently $1550 as you say. I would cost you about $900 a day. So if you can save 2 days of my worktime through using Qt instead of MFC, or lets say 4 days and lets buy a Windows Qt version and a HP or Solaris one ... you are even.

The question I would ask a guy developing "free" software (and wanting to use Qt for windows is): how much do you value your own time? You rather spend 2 years writing an application instead of 1 year and spending an additional $1500?

So a year of work is for your self less valuable than buying a good software?

angel'o'sphere