Comments on: Why I chose Qt

By: Website tools

Website tools — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:55:52 +0000

Wonderful put up, very informative. I wonder why the opposite experts of this sector do not understand this. You must continue your writing. I’m confident, you have a huge readers’ base already!|What’s Happening i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I have found It positively helpful and it has helped me out loads. I’m hoping to give a contribution & aid different users like its aided me. Great job.

By: Eduardo

Eduardo — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:13:37 +0000

Daniel Siqueira: No more. Nokia changed it.

By: Bensersiel

Bensersiel — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:09:34 +0000

Erzähl doch bitte nochmal ein wenig ausführlicher. Würde sehr gerne viel mehr darüber wissen.

By: krok

krok — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:44:10 +0000

The statement “Qt is free only if you’re using it in a free project. For commercial applications, you must obtain a commercial Qt licence” is simply wrong.

Qt is available under the LGPL i.e. the same license as GTK.

In contrast to GTK the user has even additional license choices, like the “real” GPL, or a commercial license in case he wants to modify Qt without passing on his changes as required by the (L)GPL.

By: Daniel Siqueira

Daniel Siqueira — Thu, 13 May 2010 16:09:05 +0000

“Qt is free only if you’re using it in a free project. For commercial applications, you must obtain a commercial Qt licence.”

This is the main point that I do not find Qt attractive.