Re: Compiler business prospects

[Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>]

Erich <john@peppermind.com> writes:

>> If you are asking for non-open-source commercial software, that is also
>> a different matter.
>> Can you be more precise about what your problem is?
>
> Sure, but I'm not sure if it's wise, because presumably this has been
> discussed already in the past. Look, I have nothing against the GPL
> and am even planning to release some smaller projects under the GPL,
> but the fact of the matter is that you *cannot* successfully sell
> shareware or run a small business under the GPL because someone will
> grab the source code and give his version away for free. That's just a
> fact.

That's what the music industry said about CDs, until Apple proved them
wrong with iTunes.

If you are selling a useful product (for instance an Android app), the
majority of people will be willing to pay something for it, rather than
use an illegal version. Hmm, I guess "illegal" is the wrong word here;
if you are using GPL, the free version will not be illegal.

You have to sell it at a price they are willing to pay. You may have to
offer support, or upgrades, in addition. You have to advertise to get
people's attention.

The people offering a free product will not be able to offer either
support or upgrades, nor will they be able to afford advertising.

I have no idea what the license is for most of the apps I've installed
on my Android; even if they are GPL, I can't be bothered to get the
source and compile it. I'd far rather pay someone else to do that.

> BTW, there is no real problem for me because I'm already using Racket
> successfully for my GUIs. I was just a bit disappointed that there
> seems to be no way to use Ada for that. Languages like the following
> ones offer free (as in beer) LGPL 

Your issue is free as in freedom, not free as in beer; you do not pay
for the GUI bindings. The issue is what freedoms you have regarding
distribution when you use them.

>> Source: http://www.qtada.com/en/licensing.html
>> Providing the OP enjoy Qt (I personally don't, except for platforms where
>> it's the native toolkit).
>
> Yes, but how much is the GMPL license? 

I suggest you email sales@qtada.com and find out! It might well be worth
it for your business.

> I suppose the problem is that QtAda must be based on the commercial
> version of Qt, because otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to statically
> link to the Qt libraries, and of course I understand when people want
> a return for their investment.

The "problem" is that people need to eat, so they need to get paid, same
as you. If you are making money by using other people's work, it is only
reasonable that they get a cut. Maintaining QtAda is work!

-- 
-- Stephe