4 ms·

Specifically, LGPL3 since Qt 5.7. Big problem for people making embedded devices, but shouldn’t be for commercial software.

exikyut 8y ago
If the embedded device supports dynamically linked libraries, though, that could still work
- joezydeco 8y ago
  As long as you can deliver the toolchain used to build the libraries, and allow the finished libraries to be installed on your target hardware over the current ones. I know one major vehicle manufacturer that won't go past 5.6 because of this reason. They put it right in the RFP.
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    Edit: I might be misunderstanding something here but: I'd think a major vehicle manufacturer should be able to pay for the commercial license?
    - joezydeco 8y ago
      Has nothing to do about the royalty fees. Those didn’t change from 5.6 to 5.7. It has everything to do with being required to allow end customers to install their own libraries on a piece of their machinery. LGPL 3 closed the LGPL 2.1 loophole concerning this. The legal and warranty issues around letting customers reflash their dashboards are what the company wants to avoid.
      - reitanqild 8y ago
        But I thought that was part of what you got with the commercial license, a right to use it without adhering to the open source license?
        joezydeco 8y ago
        Yeah, that does kind of point to avoiding the royalty, doesn't it?
        reitanqild 8y ago
        So we agree then, they are being cheap and the part about the license is just an excuse?
      - ethelward 8y ago
        If they were paying for the commercial version, they would use the commercial license and thus wouldn't care about the LGPL3. Therefore, they are deliberately chosing to use the FOSS version to avoid to pay the commercial one while keeping their hardware as closed as can be.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      You would be surprised by the number of lechers on the enterprise world. For them FOSS is a way to cut down development costs, while not contributing anything back, not even bug reports.
  - wiz21c 8y ago
    As I've looked, it's in section 4, paragraph d), choice 0) of the LGPL3 : "Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source." So not exactly the toolchain, but definitely allows reinstallation of upgraded libraries. I didn't know.
shmerl 8y ago
Is it because of anti-tivoisation?

exikyut 8y ago

If the embedded device supports dynamically linked libraries, though, that could still work

joezydeco 8y ago
As long as you can deliver the toolchain used to build the libraries, and allow the finished libraries to be installed on your target hardware over the current ones. I know one major vehicle manufacturer that won't go past 5.6 because of this reason. They put it right in the RFP.
- reitanqild 8y ago
  Edit: I might be misunderstanding something here but: I'd think a major vehicle manufacturer should be able to pay for the commercial license?
  - joezydeco 8y ago
    Has nothing to do about the royalty fees. Those didn’t change from 5.6 to 5.7. It has everything to do with being required to allow end customers to install their own libraries on a piece of their machinery. LGPL 3 closed the LGPL 2.1 loophole concerning this. The legal and warranty issues around letting customers reflash their dashboards are what the company wants to avoid.
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      But I thought that was part of what you got with the commercial license, a right to use it without adhering to the open source license?
      - joezydeco 8y ago
        Yeah, that does kind of point to avoiding the royalty, doesn't it?
        reitanqild 8y ago
        So we agree then, they are being cheap and the part about the license is just an excuse?
    - ethelward 8y ago
      If they were paying for the commercial version, they would use the commercial license and thus wouldn't care about the LGPL3. Therefore, they are deliberately chosing to use the FOSS version to avoid to pay the commercial one while keeping their hardware as closed as can be.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    You would be surprised by the number of lechers on the enterprise world. For them FOSS is a way to cut down development costs, while not contributing anything back, not even bug reports.
- wiz21c 8y ago
  As I've looked, it's in section 4, paragraph d), choice 0) of the LGPL3 : "Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source." So not exactly the toolchain, but definitely allows reinstallation of upgraded libraries. I didn't know.

shmerl 8y ago

Is it because of anti-tivoisation?