Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CMake: Add LGPL Option #11600

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

CMake: Add LGPL Option #11600

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

HTRamsey
Copy link
Collaborator

@HTRamsey HTRamsey commented Jun 4, 2024

Closes #8252

@HTRamsey HTRamsey force-pushed the dev-lgpl branch 3 times, most recently from caebdb0 to 993ea03 Compare June 6, 2024 03:34
Copy link
Contributor

@DonLakeFlyer DonLakeFlyer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If this removes the usage of Charts then the PX4 tuning page also uses charts. Can't remember if it PX4 only. Might be ArduPilot tuning as well.

@DonLakeFlyer
Copy link
Contributor

Also this is interesting, but really wonder whether the additional complexity is needed?

@HTRamsey
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I'll have to double check the tuning pages. I don't think it'll really be all that extra complex but we can see what it looks like after we're done with all the other custom cmake stuff. In my opinion this is pretty useful as I have worked with a few companies that won't use anything but LGPL

@s-lisovenko
Copy link
Contributor

Agree with @HTRamsey. I also know several companies that are just thinking about abandoning QGC in favor of using only lgpl solutions.

@DonLakeFlyer
Copy link
Contributor

I also know several companies that are just thinking about abandoning QGC in favor of using only lgpl solutions.

If any of those companies actually ever actually gave back to the ecosystem then I'd certainly be more interested :)

@s-lisovenko
Copy link
Contributor

I also know several companies that are just thinking about abandoning QGC in favor of using only lgpl solutions.

If any of those companies actually ever actually gave back to the ecosystem then I'd certainly be more interested :)

So far these are startups and one even makes a contribution to qgc in the person of me. But no one can move on with gpl. And the prices for commercial use of qt are simply inadequate, especially since it is also subject to the qt gender license for devices, not to mention the fact that qt prohibits mixing a commercial license with an open sources.

@DonLakeFlyer
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah, the Qt pricing is really kinda crap.

@HTRamsey HTRamsey force-pushed the dev-lgpl branch 3 times, most recently from cedd3fe to 694c9e8 Compare July 4, 2024 12:04
@HTRamsey HTRamsey marked this pull request as ready for review July 4, 2024 12:39
@HTRamsey HTRamsey marked this pull request as draft July 9, 2024 17:12
@HTRamsey HTRamsey force-pushed the dev-lgpl branch 2 times, most recently from 3734b7f to fc631ed Compare September 6, 2024 13:44
@HTRamsey HTRamsey marked this pull request as ready for review September 6, 2024 13:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Allow building QGroundControl with only LGPL Qt modules
3 participants