<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Qt to be available for free under LGPL</title>
	<atom:link href="http://successfulsoftware.net/2009/01/14/qt-to-be-available-for-free-under-lgpl/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://successfulsoftware.net/2009/01/14/qt-to-be-available-for-free-under-lgpl/</link>
	<description>Successful software requires more than just good programming.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 May 2012 08:40:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Qt visual artefacts on Mac OS X 10.6 &#171; Successful Software</title>
		<link>http://successfulsoftware.net/2009/01/14/qt-to-be-available-for-free-under-lgpl/#comment-12985</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Qt visual artefacts on Mac OS X 10.6 &#171; Successful Software]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:19:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://successfulsoftware.net/?p=1281#comment-12985</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Developer releases of 10.6 have been available for a while &#8211; I believe the Qt team should have burnt the midnight oil to make sure they had a release that properly supported 10.6 as soon as it became generally available.  I know that isn&#8217;t easy given the size of the Qt framework and Apple&#8217;s penchant for secretiveness. But that is the game they are in and that is what I expect. I think they have seriously dropped the ball here, and this is coming from a longtime Qt fan-boy. Perhaps they have spread themselves a bit too thin by moving to LGPL licensing. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Developer releases of 10.6 have been available for a while &#8211; I believe the Qt team should have burnt the midnight oil to make sure they had a release that properly supported 10.6 as soon as it became generally available.  I know that isn&#8217;t easy given the size of the Qt framework and Apple&#8217;s penchant for secretiveness. But that is the game they are in and that is what I expect. I think they have seriously dropped the ball here, and this is coming from a longtime Qt fan-boy. Perhaps they have spread themselves a bit too thin by moving to LGPL licensing. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sylvain</title>
		<link>http://successfulsoftware.net/2009/01/14/qt-to-be-available-for-free-under-lgpl/#comment-11807</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sylvain]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 04:33:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://successfulsoftware.net/?p=1281#comment-11807</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[... and what about customers like me who bought Qt few months ago?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230; and what about customers like me who bought Qt few months ago?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Brice</title>
		<link>http://successfulsoftware.net/2009/01/14/qt-to-be-available-for-free-under-lgpl/#comment-11753</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andy Brice]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:25:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://successfulsoftware.net/?p=1281#comment-11753</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IIRC Trolltech were making a loss before Nokia acquired them, but I am guessing that this was due to the cost of development and fast growth, not the cost of sales. Each sale is several thousands Euros (lots more for a big shop) and it is pretty much all done online.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IIRC Trolltech were making a loss before Nokia acquired them, but I am guessing that this was due to the cost of development and fast growth, not the cost of sales. Each sale is several thousands Euros (lots more for a big shop) and it is pretty much all done online.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony Edgecombe</title>
		<link>http://successfulsoftware.net/2009/01/14/qt-to-be-available-for-free-under-lgpl/#comment-11752</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tony Edgecombe]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:18:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://successfulsoftware.net/?p=1281#comment-11752</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think the most likely reason they did this is their license revenues weren&#039;t covering the cost of sales.

I hope it works out, there are surprisingly few good cross platform solutions at the moment.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the most likely reason they did this is their license revenues weren&#8217;t covering the cost of sales.</p>
<p>I hope it works out, there are surprisingly few good cross platform solutions at the moment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: n! Labs</title>
		<link>http://successfulsoftware.net/2009/01/14/qt-to-be-available-for-free-under-lgpl/#comment-11751</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[n! Labs]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://successfulsoftware.net/?p=1281#comment-11751</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I  think the fact that Qt cannot be statically linked under the LGPL license will still leave room for wxWidgets...it would be nice if Qt could be statically linked and I would then change over.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I  think the fact that Qt cannot be statically linked under the LGPL license will still leave room for wxWidgets&#8230;it would be nice if Qt could be statically linked and I would then change over.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

