Ok, then you should think about a few thinks if you want crossplatform.

If you only target Linux/Unix/Mac then you can use the normal Gnu Buildsystem wich is avaiable
on any Linux and Unix and even on Mac builtin. But if you want Windows and Developing on Linux
then it is a big Help using a System like CMake or Scons (i prefer CMake). CMake is not bounded
to posix or what so ever. It creates Platform depended Makefiles and Workspaces for the specific
Platform, wich is a very big Help if you have Developers on various diffrent Operating
System and if you want an single, entire Buildsolution. But if you only target nix,
you can use the Autotools approach as well.

I am a Linux user, but if I ever need to develop for windows, I will keep your suggestion in mind. Thanks.

The licensing terms are the same under Digia as they've been under Nokia. You get Qt for free under an LGPL license, which allows your application to be closed source and/or commercial. A "commercial license" is only needed if you want to create a closed-source fork of Qt itself.

Sorry, this isnt true:

http://qt.digia.com/Product/Licensing/

QT has changed its owner in the past years a few times and this can happen anytime again and this can have a hugh impact to you, espacially if you have an hugh codebase and cannot simply switch to an another Framework.

"Your source code", in this context, means your modified version of Qt itself.

What you posted says exactly the same thing I did. A commercial license is only needed if you want to create a closed source fork of Qt. The LGPL license is fine for closed source commercial applications that only link against Qt. This is true by the very definition of the LGPL. These are also the exact same terms that Nokia offered.

Wrong.

Cant you read?

I can. Any more questions?

To overcome your confusion, I suggest that you read beyond the introductions. Start by familiarizing yourself with the version of the LGPL that both Nokia and Digia have offered Qt under. (hint: it's the same one).

Another hint: since you have clearly been confused both by the wording of that paragraph and by what I strongly suspect is a predisposition on your part towards justifying your choice of Gtk, here's a more precise definition of the license terms:

http://qt.digia.com/Product/Licensin...se-Comparison/

You will notice that "Application source code can be private when linking dynamically" is, in fact, checked under the "LGPL" column. This is one of the distinguishing features of the LGPL. These are, of course, the exact same terms that Nokia offered.

If your next post demonstrates that you still have not read even the Wikipedia article on the LGPL, then I will put you in my ignore list.

I think i will put you in my ignorelist first, i dont talk with redards like you.

That's your response? Honestly, I'm tempted to give you reputation because it's sig-worthy. ;) And since you've chosen not to address any of my points, I'm going to assume that you've conceded them.

Thank you for demonstrating to the OP that he'll get better, more courteous and more informed Qt support than Gtk support here.

Well, I don't know if you eventually choose GTK, but I hope your aim wasn't mobile programming with Gtk+.
BB10, Jolla, Ubuntu Phone, necessitas project to port to Android..., all with Qt.

Qt and Gtk also aren't the only options for a desktop Linux app. If you've ever used Enlightenment, for example, it's hard to avoid being at least curious about EFL.