Hi @W-Qt-3423,
Appreciate your clarification. We agree that it’s not good form to have this conversation in public. But since we are already in public, we’d like to clarify the situation as it happened on our end.
We were inquiring about a Qt license because the latest Qt 5.x version that was available as open source at time was Qt 5.13. We needed a newer Chromium than what was included in that version. Qt 6 was already available, but our codebase was not yet compatible, and we had trouble building it on Windows with LTCG - an issue that was addressed in a later patch version of Qt. To weigh our options, we asked if it’s possible to get a short term license to access the source code. It is natural for any business to try and minimize their costs. At this point we did not want to jump on a full sales call and we responded to that suggestion with a suggestion to keep the communication in email until this is clarified. We do not think that asking this question should be taken offensively as one of the prime value propositions of a Qt license is access to the source code of versions that are not available as open source.
After Qt responded to us saying that the minimal license term is one year, we asked yet another question to clarify how many licenses we would need to buy. Our thinking was that we wanted to gauge the price to weigh the costs and benefits. Unfortunately we did not get an answer to this inquiry. From our point of view this did look like we were ignored.
Qt is an incredible product and the open source offering is a generous one. We hope we’ll be able to collaborate in the future.
We are locking this thread; if you would like to continue this conversation please reach out to us via the contact information relayed to you in our DMs (same emails as used in our earlier communication).
