[Interest] QML vs Electron

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 07/08/18 16:04, alexander golks wrote:
> Am Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:00:22 +0300
> schrieb Nikos Chantziaras <realnc at gmail.com>:
> 
>> On 07/08/18 01:19, Sylvain Pointeau wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 11:56 PM Giuseppe D'Angelo <dangelog at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:dangelog at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Out of curiosity, what prevented you from going with LGPL Qt?
>>>
>>> On desktop it is clear but on mobile, there was no clear statement if we
>>> have the rights or not.
>>> Seems like LGPL is not friendly with the various stores.
>>
>> It's fine on Android, since Qt for Android uses dynamic linking by
>> default. On iOS you only get static linking right now, and I'm not sure
>> if you can build Qt for iOS yourself and configure it for dynamic
>> linking, and whether Apple now allows dynamically linked iOS apps. The
>> solution of making re-linkable object files available for iOS to comply
>> with the LGPL is not suitable for everyone. And it's a useless solution
>> anyway, unless people jailbreak their Apple devices so that they can
>> sideload apps. Even though it satisfies LGPL requirements on your part,
>> it doesn't on Apple's part. So you end up in a situation where people
>> can claim that Apple does not have the right to distribute your
>> application. And that would still apply even if you used dynamic linking.
>>
>> But in any case, Android seems fine when using LGPL libraries, since a)
>> Qt is linked to dynamically, and b) Android officially supports sideloading.
> 
> One could also just deliver the closed source object files for relinking.
> this satisfies LGPL, too, doesn't it?

It was already addressed in my post. It seems to satisfy LGPL 
requirements on your part, but not on Apple's part (because they don't 
allow the re-linked application to run due to their DRM.)