[Interest] Qt Licensing?
konrad at silmor.de
Fri Oct 28 15:18:37 CEST 2011
On Friday 28 October 2011 14:19:56 Sathishkumar Duraisamy wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Konstantin Tokarev <annulen at yandex.ru>
> > Who told you that LGPL disallows static linking?
> Well, then I had misunderstood the license. ( I misunderstood as only
> open source apps can be statically linked while commercial apps must
> be dynamically linked).
This is however the advice that is usually given because of this property of
the LGPL: you have to give your users the ability to swap one version of the
library for another (binary compatible) version of the library.
There are three ways to do this:
1) your users have the full source(*) of the library and the program and can
do a complete recompile if they fancy so
(*)it does not have to come under an open source license - you can gag your
users with an NDA/EULA for your own program
2) you use dynamic linking and the users can swap the DLL files
3) you use static linking and give the users the object files (as a lot of
*.o's or a big *.a; win32: *.obj's or *.lib) that they need to do the linking
Chose your poison. I recommend option 2 - it is the least painful... ;-)
Of course with Qt you have the option to make Digia very happy by purchasing a
commercial license that allows static linking without the above restrictions
(at least for most modules of Qt).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the Interest