[Interest] Qt Licensing?

[Konstantin Tokarev]

28.10.2011, 17:18, "Konrad Rosenbaum" <konrad at silmor.de>:
> Hi,
>
> [Disclaimer: IANAL]
>
> 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>
>
> wrote:
>
>>>  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
> themselves
>
> Chose your poison. I recommend option 2 - it is the least painful... ;-)

3) may be painful only if some user actually asks you to provide object files.

Also, dynamic linking may be inappropriate for embedded system because
of binary size overhead.


-- 
Regards,
Konstantin