[Interest] QML vs Electron

[alexander golks]

Am Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:52:42 +0100
schrieb Mike Krus via Interest <interest at qt-project.org>:

> > On 7 Aug 2018, at 14:31, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 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.)  
> given all the appropriate project setup and compiled object code (.o, .a, even shared lib files), a user signed up to the free Apple Developer should in theory be able to link another version of Qt into a final executable, codesign it and run it on his device. Would be a real pain to setup and maintain though.

sorry, didn't want to offend someone, and perhaps i missed more sentences then i got, and i surely have no knowledge about apple (tm) things,
so i am listening to learn ;)
i though this whole rant was somehow related to the licensing problems with qt, so on this behalf i just wanted to state that one should be able to deliver closed source software using lgpl licensed qt.

that said, static linking should be possible, and this is what is needed for ios?
or what else is "apple's part"?
what else should i as a mobile ios app developer take care of?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20180807/cc281ea0/attachment.sig>