On Tuesday 28 February 2012 20:09:18 Bo Thorsen wrote: > Den 28-02-2012 19:36, Bob Hood skrev: > > On 2/28/2012 10:53 AM, Bo Thorsen wrote: > >> Den 28-02-2012 18:16, Atlant Schmidt skrev: > >>> All this may not apply to you if you're distributing > >>> Qt under the Commercial license. > >> > >> AFAIR, you're not allowed to redistribute the commercial licensed Qt. > > > > Um, what? I thought that was at least part of the reason why one would > > purchase a commercial license in the first place, so you can redistribute > > your use of Qt in any form you like (shared or static). The other part > > would be support. Am I just misunderstanding what you're trying to say? > > Sorry, I should have been more precise with this (someone else already > asked the same in a private mail). > > You are of course allowed to distribute a product based on Qt, but the > OP wanted to develop a library, which means this would be a derived > development product based on Qt, and that's where I think the license > stops you. Otherwise, he could sell off Qt licensed only to him. > > It might be that he could make a deal with Digia to do this, where a > commercial Qt license would be bundled, or something like it. No deal needs to be made. The project is private and non-profit. Might even be going GPL for what I know.
> And here's another reason it's a really bad idea: The Qt version would > be locked to the static build provided with the library. So if you have > a Qt problem that can only be solved by a patch or an upgrade, you're > out of luck. I personally wouldn't even consider buying such a product. > Add-on libraries to Qt are fine, but you need a build with dynamic libs. > Or get the add-on sourcecode and build the thing statically yourself. > > Bo Thorsen, > Fionia Software. _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
