[Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
jeanmichael.celerier at gmail.com
Fri Feb 22 11:46:19 CET 2019
Cisco did it with an app that uses gstreamer (which is under LGPL) :
They send it on request, with the proprietary part in a static lib (see at
the end here :
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 6:07 PM Sylvain Pointeau <sylvain.pointeau at gmail.com>
> 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.
>> Interest mailing list
>> Interest at qt-project.org
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Interest