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.
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.