Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
So the bottom line is: if you don't want your code to be BSD-style licensed and turn up using a proprietary license, you don't contribute to Qt. I suspect this would affect mostly people who are not getting paid for writing code, since this makes them look like idiots who work for free, while what they want is contributing to "make the world better" from an RMS point of view.
License has no attachment to money. RMS never claimed one should contribute to "make the world better" (!)
Contribution always is connected to development costs.
If the developer is interested in result, the price is his skill and time.
If the developer is not interested in result, he should charge money.

Please show me even one consumer who will resist to pay for opensource contribution?

The difference is that opensource solution will profit from cross development, reducing amount of "bicycle inventions", patent suits and wars, increase security by more pass-thru's --- pretty much all advantages of opensource model.

But the scheme to mis-use (expoit) developer time was never part of RMS idea.
If one is to make money off the development time of others, he should be legally obligated to compensate it to them.

I never thought KDE and Qt are this stupid....

Maybe its a very good idea to start a toolkit similar to Qt from scratch.

Maybe RMS releases GPLv5 where he addresses this case.