Luke Graham wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:59:26 +0900, Richard Dale
> <Richard_Dale / tipitina.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Nicholas Marriott wrote:
>> 
>> >  lighter and more free than Qt (not to mention the
>> > fact that google fails to turn up a website for ruby-qt and it doesn't
>> > appear in FreeBSD ports, making it useless for me)
> 
> Urge to.. defend Qt... rising!...
> 
>> If there is demand, Alex Kellett and myself will be happy to release a
>> commercial paid for version of QtRuby for Qt 4.x.
> 
> Could you give some details on how this would differ from whats
> already available?
Only the license - it would allow you to write commercial software which you
can't do with the GPL'd version. Often a GPL license isn't suitable for
even internal software development, because outside consultants might want
to use it and that would count as 'distributing the software' under the
GPL.

There is a commercial version of PyQt which has apparently sold 'hundreds of
copies', but then there are many more python programmers than ruby ones. So
it's difficult to estimate demand for QtRuby, but I really think ruby seems
to be catching on.

-- Richard