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

[Ross Bencina]

On 6/09/2011 11:54 PM, BRM wrote:
> 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.

That's interesting. I wasn't aware of that interpretation.


>>> 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.

Well, my understanding is that it is only the JavaScript interpreter 
that is affected.

Personally I am not happy about *any* LGPL code being in the commercial 
product. It does greatly reduce the value and utility to me. I would 
have much prefered a slower JS interpreter that I could use unencumbered 
than a fast one that I can't use without worrying about the LGPL.

But I guess there are different ways of looking at it: (1) 
corruption/infiltration of commercial licence source code with/by LGPL 
components, or (2) transition from a "software licencing" business model 
for the commercial product to "maintenance and support."

For me, there is significant value in both the commercial (ie non-LGPL) 
licence aspect and the maintenance and support aspect. I just wish some 
of the bugs and patches that support provided actually got merged back 
into the product.

</rant>

Ross.