[Interest] QtQuick for mobile - any experience to share?

[René Hansen]

I can't speak for IOS, but at least on Android, all Qt libraries are packed
inside the application apk as .so files, so no static linking there.

It seems the "go-to" reply on the list and from Qt in general is, "just buy
the license". Somewhat shortsighted, but understandable as it is, Qt is a
business, out to make a profit. However, and as I'm surely not alone in
thinking, I really don't get this approach towards small-timers. The
license cost just isn't feasible for a lone couch coder with a pet project,
who just want to put a $1 proprietary app on the store. Most those kinds of
apps never make much sales anyway and Qt is quickly excluded from the list
of candidate frameworks, due to this perceived upfront cost.

The side effect of supporting indie devs and tinkerers are a lot more
profound though. That is where the ecosystem grows. Bigger ecosystem = more
growth opportunity for the "business" down the line.

It's a shame that many devs are left with the same impression as yourself,
and easily jump ship to React Native or similar. Qt could easily be the
defacto standard for mobile app development. It's just not the narrative
being supported by the Qt corp. Hence, you won't find any official guide or
writeup on how to publish a closed source LGPL paid app on the app store.

As far as I can tell though, there's really no reason why you can't publish
a paid app, which is still compliant.

You need to let people relink against other versions of Qt, but that simply
entails making object files available on request. If ever one is made...


/René





On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 20:08 Sylvain Pointeau <sylvain.pointeau at gmail.com>
wrote:

> My mistake, I understood the question was about to make my app GPL
> compliant.
> I would agree with you for the desktop version but I don't think that it
> is feasible for a mobile app (is it not statically linked BTW?)
> and I also understood the app store was not GPL friendly, but maybe my
> knowledge is outdated.
>
> Best regards,
> Sylvain
>
> Le lun. 28 mai 2018 à 19:37, Jean-Michaël Celerier <
> jeanmichael.celerier at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> > I thought about it but that does not work for all projects, and I don’t
>> see the business model in that case for my app.
>>
>> in which case would using Qt under the LGPL affect your business model ?
>> You don't have to publish your sources, only under the GPL.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------
>> Jean-Michaël Celerier
>> http://www.jcelerier.name
>>
>> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Sylvain Pointeau <
>> sylvain.pointeau at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 16:21, René Hansen <renehh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or...
>>>>
>>>> Just make your app LGPL compliant and use Qt anyway.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I thought about it but that does not work for all projects, and I don’t
>>> see the business model in that case for my app.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Interest mailing list
>>> Interest at qt-project.org
>>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20180529/9730459b/attachment.html>