[Qt-interest] LGPL and static linking

[Christian Dähn]

Hi,

> I'm also worried about the GPL/LGPL move.
> I have QT license exactly for that, static linking.
> But Trolls are adding modules which I am not able to use
> (QtMultimedia/phonon, Webkit, QtHelp, now the QtScript)
> which makes me worried

I aggree to that - I'm in the same situation:
Commercial license but many parts of Qt now don't allow
to use it for closed source development.

Currently I'm worried that a commercial license doesn't
bring me any advantages - but more problems and lesser
possibilities to create closed source applications.

Further I have to decide, if it's possible for our company
to use Qt 4.6 in the future - due to the change of QtScript
which cannot be used in commercial apps any more :-(

So: Qt 4.6 will bring many many disadvantages for commercial
developers - so why buy licenses any more?

@sales:
Currently I have to renew the Qt Maintenance contract -
so: what to do?

ciao,
Chris

> Raul
> 
> BRM wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > 
> > From: Paul Miller <paul at fxtech.com>
> >> Stefan Josefsson wrote:
> >>> I am planning to develop a commercial closed source application on top 
> >>> of Qt/E and would like to use Qt statically linked to my application as 
> >>> this gives a substantial boost to the startup time and also reduces the 
> >>> RAM usage. The question is whether I am allowed to use the LGPL license 
> >>> of Qt. I have read a number of discussions about LGPL and static linking 
> >>> and some say that it is not allowed (those that know a little bit less?) 
> >>> and some say that it is allowed (those that know a bit more?) as long as 
> >>> you provide the rest of the world with a way to recompile the 
> >>> application with a modified version of the LPGL:d code (Qt in this 
> >>> case). See for instance these links:
> >>> http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=541047
> >>> http://www.ics.com/files/docs/Qt_LGPL.pdf
> >>> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1066632
> >>> What is Nokias view of static linking and LGPL?
> >> Buy the commercial license. If you're making commercial software you're 
> >> making money on the Trolls' hard work. Reward them. And it's relatively 
> >> cheap for what you get. It's worth every penny.
> > 
> > Honestly I quite agree. However, if you note the original post on the subject:
> > 
> > "I also just read on the blog that
> > the QtScript module from now on will be under LPGL even if you buy a commercial
> > license of Qt, so a commercial license is not the solution for using static
> > linking with Qt if you want to use QtScript."
> > 
> > So then, even if you have a commercial license there seems to be an issue that needs to get addressed.
> > And honestly, while I haven't hooked in QtScript to programs myself yet, it is certainly a very big advantage for Qt to provide, commercially or otherwise.
> > 
> > And, to my understanding (and I could very well be wrong - any reps from Nokia _please_ correct me), Nokia seems to be moving more towards LGPL licensing over commercial licensing; so again, this still needs to be addressed especially since there are numerous commercial programs that may use static linking already and will, of course, want to keep up with newer releases of Qt.
> > 
> > So either way - the topic seems to need addressing.
> > 
> > Ben
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Qt-interest mailing list
> > Qt-interest at trolltech.com
> > http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-interest
> _______________________________________________
> Qt-interest mailing list
> Qt-interest at trolltech.com
> http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-interest