[Qt-interest] LGPL compliance poll

[Dair Grant]

Josh wrote:

> So, what wording do you include in your Qt-based LGPL 'closed-source'
> commercial program?

We are in a similar position - we have a closed-source commercial app, which
uses an unmodified copy of Qt and links to it dynamically under the LGPL.

We attempted to get a definitive answer from Nokia as to what our
obligations were to comply with the LGPL, but were unsuccessful (we had some
initial communication, then no reply).


The approach we are taking is to ship a "Software Licenses" document with
the app, which details what 3rd party libraries we use and how we comply
with their licences.

For the Qt section, we state that we "This application uses Qt 4.7.0,
included under the LGPL 2.1. No modifications to the source were made.".

We also provide:

 - The build instructions to rebuild Qt
 - A link to a copy of Qt's LGPL licence text, which we ship with the app
 - A link to a copy of Qt's source tarball, which we host on our web site

Personally I don't think we need to do the last point (we don't modify the
source, so I think we could just link to Qt's official tarballs instead of
hosting our own copy), but we were unable to get a yes/no from Qt as to if
this is required or not.

You may/may not need to provide the build instructions: we do since we
rebuild Qt to set _BIND_TO_CURRENT_VCLIBS_VERSION for MSVC 2008 SP1 and to
get all the build flavours we need on the Mac.


-dair
___________________________________________________
dair at refnum.com              http://www.refnum.com/