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

[BRM]

----- Original Message -----

> From: Ross Bencina <rossb-lists at audiomulch.com>
> On 3/09/2011 4:32 AM, NoRulez wrote:
>>  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.
> 
> My (limited) understanding is that there are really two "freedom" 
> issues 
> with unmodified LGPL:
> 
> 1. As you suggest above, if you change the sources to Qt you are 
> requeired to release those changes. You are also, in some sense, 
> required to ensure that your end-users can access the Qt sources whether 
> you changed them or not.

While IANAL, please note that you only have to provide those changes to those whom you distribute to AND anyone that they may cause you to indirectly distribute to.
Obviously the easiest way to manage this is to contribute said changes back to the community so they become part of the official Qt; but that is not required per LGPL/GPL.

...
> If you don't like this, you *could* buy a commercial licence... except 
> that now there is some LGPL code even in the commercial tree so you need 
> to be careful.

Qt Commercial has a separate installer. Now I would expect that software installed using that installer would comply with the Commercial License and exclude the LGPL only code.
Is that not the case? If so - then there is no reason for anyone to purchase a Commercial License any longer.

Ben