[Qt-interest] LGPL and static linking

[BRM]

In aid of this discussion - is there information in the Qt developer documentation (e.g. what 'assistant' displays) that tells when a Qt Module (e.g. QtScript, etc.) is NOT under the Commercial license so that those who are using the commercial distribution with the Commercial license can tell the difference between what is licensed under the Commercial license and what isn't? If not, that would be extremely helpful.

Just a thought.

Ben



----- Original Message ----
From: Robin Helgelin <lobbin at gmail.com>
To: qt-interest at trolltech.com
Sent: Thu, December 3, 2009 3:09:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Qt-interest] LGPL and static linking

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 01:37,  <andrew.m.goth at l-3com.com> wrote:
> It's not entirely arbitrary, because dynamic linking keeps the application and the Qt library in separate files.  Separate files make it very easy to show that the Qt library has not been unmodified.  But if the Qt library has been folded into the application by means of static linking, it's much more difficult to show that no modification has taken place.  That's why I suggested delivering separate .a files to be linked by the customer.  From the perspective of a lawyer (so I imagine), this mimics the way dynamic linking works.  From the perspective of the computer, it's still static linking, no matter who does it.

What about when I pay for a commercial license which allows me to link
Qt static even with a modified Qt, I suddenly isn't allowed to use all
parts of Qt.

-- 
        regards,
        Robin

_______________________________________________
Qt-interest mailing list
Qt-interest at trolltech.com
http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-interest