Bold move not adding the LGPL or other more open license for a library. I get it. They want it used for OSS or get paid. But I think that limits the user base and therefore its appeal to folks who would actually pay for it.<p>It really will need to provide a superior technical product and more efficient dev experience like Qt did before Gtk "caught up" and forced the Qt license change.<p>If I'm a company, I'd rather use something I could hire folks who have experience with it unless it met those criteria. This is a crowded space, unlike "modern" X11 GUI frameworks at the time of Qt/early KDE.<p>From the look, there's no real differentiation here from the rest of the crowd. Maybe they'll hit that. As a big company, I'd pay for "support" for both that aspect and for input into the direction of the product. My big company does this for most OSS. But I don't do GUI dev in real life.<p>I won't ever use it personally because:<p>a) I won't pay for it for a hobby project. I'm probably going to go actual native and just hit 1 platform and do native on another if there's demand. If I'm going cross platform, I'm just going to do what everyone does these days: hit the web and forget about "native." Then use something clunky like Electron if I managed to be successful and folks wanted a local app.<p>b) I'm not going to license any OSS I make w/ the GPLv3+. Personal preference. Maybe enough people will disagree for them to get a user base.<p>It's a shame. I wanted to like it just because I love the band Slint.