[Qt-interest] Legal question: Qt IOS static linking

[NoRulez]

I had also one question about this problem.

Why I must distribute my app. I thought that it would be a problem when I change the sources from Qt, but when I create static libraries then I don't touch the sources, so for my understanding I doesn't need to distribute anything from my app.

Is this right or wrong? When can I use the LGPL version for commercial usage, only when I use the dynamic libraries?

Thanks in advance

Best Regards
NoRulez

Am 02.09.2011 um 19:27 schrieb Thiago Macieira <thiago at kde.org>:

> On Friday, 2 de September de 2011 18:53:47 Nicola Brisotto wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I would like to use Qt on Android and IOS at least for my applications
>> business logic and basic networking.
>> To submit an application to the App Store I need to statically link Qt LGPL.
>> My main concerns are:
>> 1) Will the app be approved by Apple?
> 
> You have to ask Apple, not us.
> 
> There were some problems before with the Mac App Store that Qt would touch 
> config files that didn't belong to the application and this wasn't allowed. I 
> don't remember if it's been fixed.
> 
> The static linking is not a criterion in qualification.
> 
>> 2) Is it legal to statically link Qt?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> To answer the first question I can package an app and send it to the
>> store. But to answer the second I need your help, I'm not I lawyer.
> 
> That was easy then. :-)
> 
>> Reading the qt-interest mailing list I’ve found t
> is Thiago Macieira’s
>> reply
>> http://lists.qt.nokia.com/pipermail/qt-interest/2011-August/035172.html
> 
> Pfft. Clueless guy. :-)
> 
>> “You can statically link using the LGPL. But you must provide a way for the
>> Qt in your application to be replaced. The easiest way to do that is to use
>> dynamic linking, but you can always provide the .o for your application and
>> a Makefile.”
> 
>> I suppose this means that there no legal problem to statically link an
>> app with qt and publish on the apple store if I provide the .o,
>> Makefile, etc. Is it right?
> 
> Right. You can also provide the sources under a redistributable license. 
> That's even easier.
> 
>> PS: Does it any difference use a Qt commercial licence?
> 
> Yes. If you have a commercial license, you can use its terms instead of the 
> LGPL terms.
> 
> -- 
> Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
>  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>     PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
>     E067 918B B660 DBD1 
> 05C  966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
> _______________________________________________
> Qt-interest mailing list
> Qt-interest at qt.nokia.com
> http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-interest