Qt, Open Source and corona

[Sven Brauch]

On Tuesday, 14 April 2020 06:01:47 CEST Nicolás Alvarez wrote:
> I agree it's possible that "we're thinking about restricting ALL Qt
> releases to paid license holders for the first 12 months" was just to
> force our hand and make us give them other concessions, and that
> they're not actually planning to do it.
> 
> But that's what the fork discussion is about. As Nate said, "we are
> thinking of forking Qt" and having credible ability to do so, might
> force *their* hand and make them take a step back. If then
> negotiations go well, we don't need to actually fork. *Worst* case,
> negotiations don't go well, and we have a head start on the forking
> work.

I completely agree with this. Both "we will restrict releases for 12 months" 
and "we will fork Qt" are terrible decisions. But, I am in fact convinced that 
a potential KDE/KDAB/...-backed fork would quickly gain a *lot* of users and 
also contributors. I expect TQtC knows this as well.

Planning how this fork could work out and saying "ok, if you do this, we do 
that" puts us in a position of power in this conflict, which makes it an 
important thing to do.

Best,
Sven