Am Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:00:22 +0300 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras <rea...@gmail.com>:
> On 07/08/18 01:19, Sylvain Pointeau wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 11:56 PM Giuseppe D'Angelo <dange...@gmail.com > > <mailto:dange...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> [...] > >> Out of curiosity, what prevented you from going with LGPL Qt? > > > > On desktop it is clear but on mobile, there was no clear statement if we > > have the rights or not. > > Seems like LGPL is not friendly with the various stores. > > It's fine on Android, since Qt for Android uses dynamic linking by > default. On iOS you only get static linking right now, and I'm not sure > if you can build Qt for iOS yourself and configure it for dynamic > linking, and whether Apple now allows dynamically linked iOS apps. The > solution of making re-linkable object files available for iOS to comply > with the LGPL is not suitable for everyone. And it's a useless solution > anyway, unless people jailbreak their Apple devices so that they can > sideload apps. Even though it satisfies LGPL requirements on your part, > it doesn't on Apple's part. So you end up in a situation where people > can claim that Apple does not have the right to distribute your > application. And that would still apply even if you used dynamic linking. > > But in any case, Android seems fine when using LGPL libraries, since a) > Qt is linked to dynamically, and b) Android officially supports sideloading. One could also just deliver the closed source object files for relinking. this satisfies LGPL, too, doesn't it? -- /* * printk(KERN_ERR "happy meal: Receiver BigMac ATTACK!"); * linux-2.6.19/drivers/net/sunhme.c */
pgp2SdttDmwl1.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
