They do, but you have to look into the right ones, from ex-Qt employees,
You can make use of Figma integration for something similar to Qt Design Studio.
Too many folks nowadays don't seem to fully understand how powerful GUI designers for native code used to be.
You always get some arguments about pixel perfect positioning, completly ignoring the fact most of them had layout managers available, even VB pre-VB.NET (yes Windows Forms does support layout managers).
The thing that irks me about slint is the use of the more restrictive GPLv3-only which prevents it from being incorporated into a project which is licensed GPLv3-or-later. I don't get why it is done like that.
GPLv4 could be the MIT license. GPLv3-or-later is a statement of arbitrary trust towards the FSF. Corporations serious about licensure, like SixtyFPS, aren't fans of that. (I don't think I've ever seen GPLv3-or-later in the wild from non-GNU/FSF software.)
GPLv3-or-later is pretty commonplace in the world of free software even outside of GNU stuff.
Easy, similar to Qt.
Don't want to pay upstream? Also don't get to charge money.
Want to pay up stream? Another license can be arranged where both parties get to earn money.
Qt is LGPL 3. Slint is GPL 3. There is a massive difference there for a “library “
But to be fair to Slint, they do have a free proprietary license which can be used for developing proprietary applications as long as it’s not considers in the “embedded” space.
I think you misread the post you're replying to. GP is complaining about it being incompatible with "GPLv3-or-later" Free Software, not with commercial or permissive OSS.
Yes, and being incompatible with GPLv3-or-later may be done on purpose to push folks into a commercial license.
GPLv3-or-later is currently almost the same as GPLv3-only at the moment given there is no GPLv4.
The reason why it's not possible to include GPLv3-only code in a GPLv3-or-later codebase is that the latter is more permissive, allowing the FSF to release an updated version of the GPL.
They won't make GPLv4 any less copyleft and more permissive than GPLv3, if they ever do make one. At worst, the GPLv4 will cause some commercial user of the code to be even more inconvenienced.
You can freely charge money with either GPLv3-only or GPLv3-or-later.
I am not asking them to remove GPLv3-only and replace it with MIT, I am asking them to use GPLv3-or-later.