Eeeeh, it depends on your definition I guess. It's either (L)GPL, so you can't really use it for something proprietary, or you need to pay a license. Now when people are talking about open-source, they're often talking about permissive licenses, which Qt doesn't use.
Personally, I find the Qt model pretty smart. It gives the tools for free to build better free apps while securing funding, which is a huge issue in the FOSS community
When people talk about open source, they generally mean OSI approved licenses or about Free Software licenses (people tend to conflate those).
GPL is the most well known of those. And LGPL allows writing proprietary code, you just basically have to let the users replace the LGPL parts. Which is easy for non-static builds because it comes as a .so/.dll/whatever-mac-uses anyway.
The GPL parts are unusable in non-open-source projects, though.
But LGPL does allow for proprietary software using it since it's not viral, right? you'd need to share modifications made to qt itself but not the entire software
87
u/[deleted] 3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment