Remember what @wendell was saying where there wasn’t any open source frame time analyzers? This appears to be one with full ability to view the source.
Unfortunately, it’s MIT license and not a more open license, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Also, it USED to have FFmpeg integration but they removed it… That’s shooting yourself in the foot.
MIT is one of the most permissive licenses in existance. Can’t get much more open than this except for CC0.
I thought the Linux Kernel maintainers had issues with MIT vs GPL…
Some do but even Fedora adds 3rd party software like nvidia closed source drivers as options now. Adding this would not be an issue at a 3rd party repo.
The MIT license is very open. It allows you to do just about everything, including linking with the GPL. I recommend you read it - it’s very short:
Copyright ©
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.
Issues between GPL and other licenses usually stem from the GPL itself, because it is a viral license. Whether that is a good thing or not is up to you, but the MIT license is certainly not an issue.
Sorry for reviving this thread, I’m the author of trdrop and I released a new Qt-based version of the tool! Please take a look and spread the message.
Unfortunately I had to comply with Qt-licensing and use LGPLv3. It was not possible for me to use a more permissive license 
I’m open for any questions / or suggestions!
This is the only thing I dislike in Qt, welcome to the community.
Thanks for the update!
this is my issue with GPL. 
It’s a viral license.
Of course you are allowed to use a permissive license.
The GPL disallows you to put more restrictions onto your software, but doesn’t stop you from using more liberal license. The idea is to stop people from making software proprietary, but the FSF obviously has no issue with you giving away even more rights.
Most hate for viral licenses comes from the fact that people don’t understand them…
From the QT faq:
Can I make software with the Qt Open Source Edition and release it under the GNU GPL, BSD, or Artistic license?
Yes. The GNU GPL, GPL-compatible licenses, or any other approved open source license will do. The FSF.org and OpenSource.org web sites list approved software licenses.
Here’s FSF’s list of licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
Everything “GPL compatible” is fair game.
That’s awesome! Thank you for your response, I did not have the opportunity to look more into the compatibility of the LGPLv3 license.
I’ll take a look at the possible licenses and try to find an appropriate one. The MIT License is supported so I’ll probably revert to it again.
EDIT: Reverted to MIT.