#x27;t afford the yearly cost of 739 NZD, but maybe this will
change in the future
when I'm more successful.
Thanks,
Ben
-Original Message-
From: Interest On Behalf Of Ben Cottrell
Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 22:45
To: interest@qt-project.org
Subject: [Interest] Individual de
On 23/02/22 10:50 am, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022, Ben Cottrell wrote:
I would like to use Qt libraries that are statically linked into my binaries,
but the monthly license cost is too expensive, as I'm unemployed at the
moment.
Can’t you use the LGPL-licenced versions
Hi,
I would like to use Qt libraries that are statically linked into my
binaries, but the monthly license cost is too expensive, as I'm
unemployed at the moment.
Is the license price negotiable for individual developers?
Thanks,
Ben Cot
I've tried to configure and build Qt 6.1 statically, and have succeeded
doing so on GNU/Linux, specifically Debian 11.
However, configuring and building Qt on Microsoft Windows on a Windows
host with either MinGW or MSVC has been impossible.
I would like to have virtual machines or Docker contain
ton.resize(200, 100);
button.show();
return QApplication::exec();
}
Afterwards, I used strip on untitled, reducing the size to 16MB. If I
give it to people, I'll provide the object file if they want to relink
it.
On Fri, 2021-08-27 at 12:36 +0200, Joerg Bornemann wrote:
> O
So Qt makes sense for large applications, but for smaller ones, it's
more efficient to use individual libraries per platform.
Until Qt is more easily configurable, I cannot justify using it's
libraries in small applications.
On Thu, 2021-08-26 at 07:39 -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Thursday,
Qt is becoming more and more feature rich, but applications aren't
getting any smaller. I wish there was easier ways of configuring and
building Qt with shared libraries containing only the necessary
functionality. Maybe more modularity is the answer.
I want to comply with the LGPL license, but I
