Stephen Kelly wrote: > BRM wrote: > >> As pointed out, the main reason Qt Commercial customers buys the >> commercial license is to not to have to worry about some of the LGPL >> requirements - namely the ability to static link. Where I presently work >> has a commercial license. We static link a lot of things. Could we >> dynamically link? Probably. We don't modify Qt itself (though we could); >> but we primarily don't want to have to worry about the LGPL requirements >> either (e.g. providing object files that can be relinked, etc.) - the >> company is too small to try to keep track of all of that, nor are our >> customers really interested in it. >> >> So there are very big concerns that the Qt Commercial License alleviates. > > Keep in mind that with Qt4 at least, you can't use QtScript, QML, or > WebKit with the Qt commercial license. You use it with the LGPL (and its > obligations) or not at all. > > With Qt 5 the situation with QML is almost different. It's based on the > BSD licensed v8 rather than the LGPL JSC, but they actually copied some > JSC code into the QtQml module, so that one is still LGPL in Qt 5 (some > math stuff). I don't know how easy that would be to re-write.
Clarification: It was DateMath functions. They have already been removed in Qt 5 though in commit 65bfc35429e845cf6b76d58107360a1360a654fc in qtdeclarative, so QML probably is LGPL-free in Qt 5. > > So, currently, if you want to use QtQuick/QML (and according to the > marketting, you do.), you can't buy your way out of the LGPL compliance > requirements. > > You also have to figure out what those requirements are by the way, which > is more than just whether your code must be Free or can be proprietary. > > Thanks, > > Steve. _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
