28 ms·

IANAL, but this requirement is the reason I stopped using Qt for my own projects. Those terms would seem to mean anything you write using Qt can't be deployed o

IANAL, but this requirement is the reason I stopped using Qt for my own projects. Those terms would seem to mean anything you write using Qt can't be deployed on a closed platform. Tons of people use LGPLd code on iOS and Android (stores like Play and Amazon) though and I think most users and developers are ignorant of the relinking requirement. I didn't want to risk it.

rsynnott 9y ago
Here's an old example of how it can (apparently; presumably according to Google's lawyers) be done for iOS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4302517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4302517 Google has now killed off Sparrow entirely, but they used to make it available for download so that an end-user could in principle re-link it, to comply with the LGPL.
- ChajusSaib 9y ago
  So if I were to statically link my application but release the object files and let user's re-compile it with another version of the library then that would satisfy the LGPL license? If so I think I might be headed back to Qt.
  - chrisseaton 9y ago
    Or just dynamically link.
    - ChajusSaib 9y ago
      I'm asking for iOS which won't allow it.
  - paxcoder 9y ago
    Seems so: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynami... It would appear that once again the FUD is unjustified, and in reality GNU/SFLC licenses well made
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
rectang 9y ago
The Apache Software Foundation does not allow its projects to have mandatory LGPL dependencies for this reason: it would become impossible to bundle the Apache product plus its dependencies into a package that forbids modification, either through technical or licensing restrictions. This linking restriction is not a part of other product-scoped copyleft licenses like the MPL and the EPL.
chronial 9y ago
> Those terms would seem to mean anything you write using Qt can't be deployed on a closed platform. This sentence is missing a "closed source". If you license your application under GPL, you will have none of these problems.

rsynnott 9y ago

Here's an old example of how it can (apparently; presumably according to Google's lawyers) be done for iOS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4302517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4302517 Google has now killed off Sparrow entirely, but they used to make it available for download so that an end-user could in principle re-link it, to comply with the LGPL.

ChajusSaib 9y ago
So if I were to statically link my application but release the object files and let user's re-compile it with another version of the library then that would satisfy the LGPL license? If so I think I might be headed back to Qt.
- chrisseaton 9y ago
  Or just dynamically link.
  - ChajusSaib 9y ago
    I'm asking for iOS which won't allow it.
- paxcoder 9y ago
  Seems so: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynami... It would appear that once again the FUD is unjustified, and in reality GNU/SFLC licenses well made
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

rectang 9y ago

The Apache Software Foundation does not allow its projects to have mandatory LGPL dependencies for this reason: it would become impossible to bundle the Apache product plus its dependencies into a package that forbids modification, either through technical or licensing restrictions. This linking restriction is not a part of other product-scoped copyleft licenses like the MPL and the EPL.

chronial 9y ago

> Those terms would seem to mean anything you write using Qt can't be deployed on a closed platform. This sentence is missing a "closed source". If you license your application under GPL, you will have none of these problems.