| Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL
Oct 30 2009 on content ScreenGrab |
My response was less about this project and more about your statement "If the license is GPL, you have to upload the source. If it is not, you have to have a non-GPL (commercial) license for Qt.
" -- your statement is incorrect since Qt now may be used as LGPL. Yes, if the author wishes his code to be GPL, he needs to provide source, however if he were to choose some other license for his work, he would no longer need a commercial license for Qt to do so. This changed at Qt 4.5 I think. |
|  | | Re: Re: Re: GPL
Oct 29 2009 on content ScreenGrab |
> cannot use any static Qt library files like QtCore4.dll without publishing the source code.
When using LGPL, you never have to release source code to your own app. The only source you must release: IF you modify the LPGL code, then you must release your modifications.
Furthermore, QtCore4.dll is not a static library, it's a dynamic one. If he released binary-only, this means you are still able to use any QtCore4.dll you wish and still use his app with it -- as long as he has not made modifications to the dll that are required for his app to run. This is why he has no compulsion to release his code (again, assuming he has not modified the library -- and then he only must release his library modifications under the LGPL). |
| | | Re: GPL
Oct 28 2009 on content ScreenGrab |
Qt is also available as LGPL now. |
| |
Search people
Current visitors
New users
Birthdays
Most active users
Back
|
|
