[Qt-interest] LGPL and static linking

[David Ching]

"Neville Dastur" <qt at dastur.me.uk> wrote in message
news:4B0DC724.4070203 at dastur.me.uk...
> I wish a Nokia representative would state their position. From a legal
> point of view the case can be argued both ways. The basic fact is, it
> comes down to what Nokia want to achieve by the LGPL and what their
> intention is. The issue will only truly come about if Nokia decides to
> challenge someone using Qt with a static closed source project.
>
> AFAIK the aim of releasing Qt with LGPL is to achieve greater use so Nokia
> why don't you clear this up. State intentions and lets us all get on with
> coding apps using this great library. And while you are at it put an
> exception into the LGPL so that it is in writing for the lawyer types.
>

Although I have not come into a situation where I would be better served
with static linking, I too wish Nokia would clear this up.  But we must
remember they also benefit from selling commercial licenses, and if there is
any doubt about the LPGL, customers will purchase commercial.  So at least 
from the viewpoint of selling commercial licenses, it is not in Nokia's 
interest to clear this up.

Regardless of that, it really is not entirely Nokia's fault that such flaws 
exist in industry standard licensing agreements.  Obviously the LPGL 2.1 is 
good enough to have become a standard for some years now, and Nokia 
shouldn't have to fix it all by itself.  Well, they did fill the void with 
Qt, so it would be great if they also filled the void with a great licensing 
agreement, but I don't think they should be criticized for not doing so.

I do think the point about QtScript and the other parts of Qt that are 
licensed ONLY under LPGL may force this issue since there is no more 
escaping by buying a commercial license.  As I recall though at least for 
QtScript, the reason it is LPGL only is because it is based on 3rd party 
code (i.e. JavaScriptCore) that is LPGL, and Qt can't rescind that 
requirement.  So again, this is not Nokia's fault.

-- David