-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 12:46:46PM +0100, hdv@gmail wrote: > On 2017-11-23 09:08, Weaver wrote: > > > I don't think you'll find LibreCad is `dead'. > > I think you'll find it just takes a little more than five minutes to get > > on top of a programme. > > The traffic on a mailing list is also no indication of usage or how > > `good' a package is. > > Traffic may well be low because of ease of use, for example. > > > > Of course, if you're happy paying for your software, why don't you move > > straight to AutoCad? > > Why the hostility? I didn't say LibreCAD is bad or even that is _was_ dead. I > am > just inclined to think so based on my (admittedly limited) experience with it.
Yes. To be fair, QCad is GPLV3, according to [1] -- I didn't look at the sources, though. With proprietary plugins. Now this is the "open core" [2] license model, which does have problems of its own and has been criticized fot that (among other things, the parent company has a financial interest in keeping the free core as uncomfortable as possible to suck users into the proprietary extensions), but that doesn't mean that *all* companies give in to this temptation. On the contrary, there are really good examples of this model being put to good use out there. So be careful with criticism until you really have looked into how those folks behave... (No, I don't know how QCad scores here. Anyone willing to find out?) All generalizations suck :-) Cheers [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QCad [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_core - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAloWt64ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbB0gCcDiYT5nvKj4WZZ7LlraMdotk8 e4MAn0r7Z/1Nm0Tt+jco1HCzXUt1OwqQ =ZTBd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
