[Interest] Fwd: vs. Flutter
jeanmichael.celerier at gmail.com
Fri Feb 22 12:06:47 CET 2019
> They even included, scripts to build the app. I'm not sure you have to go
quite that far to be compliant, but awesome nevertheless.
You explicitely have to:
LGPLv3 4. e): Provide Installation Information, but only if you would
otherwise be required to provide such information under section 6 of the
GNU GPL, and only to the extent that such information is necessary to
install and execute a modified version of the Combined Work produced by
recombining or relinking the Application with a modified version of the
Linked Version. (If you use option 4d0, the Installation Information must
accompany the Minimal Corresponding Source and Corresponding Application
Code. If you use option 4d1, you must provide the Installation Information
in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying
And the corresponding GPL part (section 6, emphasis mine) :
The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means* all the
source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run
the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those
activities.* However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or
general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used
unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 11:55 AM René Hansen <renehh at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, 13:47 Jean-Michaël Celerier, <
> jeanmichael.celerier at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 :
> That is really cool. They even included, scripts to build the app. I'm not
> sure you have to go quite that far to be compliant, but awesome
> nevertheless. Maybe someone can clarify this further. I.e. Are you
> responsible for providing a, or instructions for creating a, working build
> environment, in order to be LGPL compliant.
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 6:07 PM Sylvain Pointeau <
>> sylvain.pointeau at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>> Interest mailing list
>> Interest at qt-project.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Interest