4 ms·
From what I remember you need a commercial license to link QT statically so it's unavoidable. I'm guessing linux reuses the shared library, but apps on windows
by rootlocus 8y ago
From what I remember you need a commercial license to link QT statically so it's unavoidable. I'm guessing linux reuses the shared library, but apps on windows usually ship all DLLs alongside the binary.
- jchw 8y agoQt for X11 was GPL since at least Qt 3, which certainly means you could legally link it with other GPL sources in any manner. I believe Qt 4 went LGPL for all platforms, so now I believe you can link it with pretty much anything that's open source, and dynamically link proprietary applications. I am not a lawyer and some people disagree with how to interpret the rules of linking, but I think this is mostly the conventional wisdom.
- seba_dos1 8y agoYou can link statically LGPL to anything, as long as you provide a way to relink by the user - so, .a or .o files available for download are enough.
- IshKebab 8y agoA commercial license, or you license your code as GPL or LGPL.
- beojan 8y ago> apps on windows usually ship all DLLs alongside the binary Can someone tell me why this is the case? Beyond simply not having a package manager to do dependency resolution. You lose most of the benefits of shared libraries if you do this. This is probably why dynamic linking appears to be decidedly a second-class citizen with Rust and co.
- setr 8y agoAfaik, they ship installers usually, not simply a dll binary for their local use; if its installed systemwide, no installation occurs, and if not, its installed system-wide. But the system’s copy is used generally, in either case.
- CamperBob2 8y agoCan someone tell me why this is the case? Because hard disk space is dirt cheap and my time and sanity are not.
- dman 8y agoI dont believe you have to provide source - https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynami...