> If you must purchase a commercial license to BOTH Qt AND whatever bindings
> you're using to do a commercial Qt app in anything but C++, then how can
> they claim that the bindings are competing with them?  I've never heard of
> any bindings claiming to be a replacement for Qt, nor could they be.  You
> purchase just Qt or both, meaning no matter what they get their cut.

It has been a long time since I had the conversation, so the details are 
coming back slowly (but faster than my dead hard drive with the email 
archives is coming back).

As I am recalling now, the catch is that anyone who wanted to use the bindings 
in a commercial way would also need the commercial Qt license. In this way, 
they are differentiating bindings from "normal" applications. For example, if 
I wrote my application SuperDuper, I would normally be include Qt's libs in 
the application if I had a commercial Qt license, but for bindings, they 
would not permit that kind of situation.

(I say "commercial" in the generic sense for proprietary, enterprise license 
or whatever the phrasing is.)
_______________________________________________
Kde-bindings mailing list
Kde-bindings@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-bindings