[Interest] Qt Licensing?
annulen at yandex.ru
Fri Oct 28 15:24:21 CEST 2011
28.10.2011, 17:18, "Konrad Rosenbaum" <konrad at silmor.de>:
> [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>
>>> 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... ;-)
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.
More information about the Interest