Thread: licensing - Let's do the thing right:
View Single Post
lma is offline lma
2010-09-20 , 13:24
Posts: 2,802 | Thanked: 4,491 times | Joined on Nov 2007
#6
Originally Posted by zimon View Post
Just to clarify, because I think there was contradiction in previous posts.

Isn't Qt LGPL'ed, so if one makes commercial program which uses Qt and sells it, it is ok, free and one can choose whatever license one wants? Except, if the library (Qt) itself is developed futher and sold for example as Qt^2.
The following are all ok (shorthand: GPL == GPLv3, LGPL == LGPLv2.1 in Qt context):
  • Writing and distributing a closed-source app that's dynamically linked with Qt (using either a commercial or LGPL Qt licence).
  • Writing and distributing a closed-source app that's statically linked with and/or includes Qt (using a commercial Qt licence).
  • Writing and distributing an open-source app (any GPL/LGPL-compatible licence) that's dynamically linked with Qt.
  • Modifying Qt for your own personal use (any Qt licence).

The following is not ok:
  • Modifying and redistributing Qt with any licence other than GPL or LGPL.

Note also that source code licence and binary price are orthogonal, it's perfectly fine to sell GPL apps for $$$, as it is to give away closed-source binaries for free.
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to lma For This Useful Post: