[Qt-interest] Licensing

[Kustaa Nyholm]

> Static vs. dynamic was discussed here as well
> A response from nokia was posted by thiago:
> 
> http://lists.trolltech.com/pipermail/qt-interest/2009-December/016090.html
> 

Very interesting, thanks for the link and the benefit of the opinion of
legal counsel Cristina Hamley.

> In short: There is no clear Yes or No. But they suggest to use dynamic
> linking with LGPL'd Qt.

That [there is no clear yes or no] is probably right.

However I did not follow her reasoning why static linking is in dispute,
and I stand by my assessment that static linking of LGPL'd code is allowed.

But she is correct in stating that:

"Ultimately, however, this decision is one of risk and
the individual Qt user should make this decision based on the specific
circumstances relevant to his or her particular application."

But I did not quite get this sentence:

"Because the LGPL v. 2.1 source code obligations can
be enforced by any recipient of the application and LGPL-licensed library,
Nokia's position on this issue is not particularly relevant and is merely
one opinion among many."

Yes, I get that Nokias position may not be relevant if there is code
in Qt that has been contributed to it under LGPL and for which Nokia
does not have full copyright.

But how would any 'recipient' of an  application enforce LGPL obligations in
an attempt to prohibit static linking?

How could the recipient ie licensee prohibit/prevent (even if LGPL
prohibited static linking, which I'm not conceding) the copyright holder
from allowing other forms of usage (static linking) of the  application in a
way that contradicts the LGPL license?

A copyright holder that has contributed code under a misguided
interpretation of LGPL might try to enforce his/hers interpretation but not
the recipient of the software.

So, here we have a good example how helpful a lawyers opinion is likely to
be.

br Kusti