[Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter

[Sylvain Pointeau]

Do you have one example of someone who put a LGPL app in the app store and
provided the binary object files?

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 3:58 PM Julius Bullinger <julius.bullinger at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 21.02.2019 15:44, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> > Qt is free (on mobile), free as in liberty, as long as your
> > application is free, as in liberty.
> > That's basic (L)GPL rules.
> >
> > Now there's the business rules:
> > If you want your (mobile) app to be non-free (as in proprietary), then
> > you'll have to pay the Qt company for that. Disregarding the fact that
> > you want to make money or not.
>
> Please do not spread this misinformation! As long as you adhere to the
> terms of LGPL, you can create non-free, proprietary and closed apps with
> Qt (or any other LGPL library for that matter). You only need to make
> sure that the user can replace all LGPL parts with their own builds.
>
> The fact that the mobile OS's and app stores make it exceptionally hard
> to do that is not an issue with the license terms. If you find a way
> that enables the user to replace LGPL parts (for example by dynamic
> linking or by making all object files and linking instructions available
> on request), that's perfectly valid and legal.
>
> _That_ is a basic LGPL rule.
>
>
> https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-lesser-general-public-license-v2.1-(lgpl-2.1)
>
> https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-lesser-general-public-license-v3-(lgpl-3)
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20190221/b56f933c/attachment.html>