5 ms·

That's the equivalent of creative accounting for software developers. Dick move. Such behaviour just leaves the market to big corps who can afford to release

That's the equivalent of creative accounting for software developers. Dick move. Such behaviour just leaves the market to big corps who can afford to release such tools for free while extracting money from elsewhere.

pabs3 6y ago
The above technique is compliant with the license of Qt (LGPL). If Qt didn't want to allow it, they would have used a different license like the GPL.
- abjKT26nO8 6y ago
  Then you wouldn't be able to write BSD-licensed apps using Qt at all. Creative accounting is also legal per se. It doesn't make it right.
  - Nokinside 6y ago
    Why not? There's nothing in the BSD license that prevents you from mixing in code. LGPL doesn't care if you link it against BSD code. Just that the LGPL code must stay under LGPL.
    - abjKT26nO8 6y ago
      I was replying to the suggestion that Qt could be released under GPL if its authors wanted to prevent the creative accounting described by OP. Also, LGPL is already problematic, because you cannot link statically with it.
      - Nokinside 6y ago
        > Also, LGPL is already problematic, because you cannot link statically with it. Damn. I just wrote the whole top level comment to explain that you can link statically LGPL code and how to do it with details.
        abjKT26nO8 6y ago
        That's just a workaround. Now I need to add *.o files to my deb packages. Or ship source code in deb packages? What is it? Gentoo?
        rcxdude 6y ago
        You don't, you just need to provide a way to get them (you can even specify that requests must be sent by post and charge postage for the response on a CD). It's not a 'workaround', it's literally how the license is supposed to work.
      - TomasM 6y ago
        https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynami... "If you statically link against an LGPLed library, you must also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application."
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
detaro 6y ago
It's a bit odd to label doing the thing that differentiates the LGPL as a "dick move".
phoe-krk 6y ago
> That's the equivalent of creative accounting for software developers. That's precisely what makes LGPL the LGPL. If it is a dick move, it is a FSF-endorsed, widely deployed, and widely used dick move.
- abjKT26nO8 6y ago
  I couldn't care less what's FSF-endorsed. They are not the company behind Qt. Perhaps ask the Qt company what they endorse?
  - phoe-krk 6y ago
    This is what they want, since they release Qt under LGPL. If they wanted to prohibit static linking altogether, then they would use GPL exclusively.
    - abjKT26nO8 6y ago
      No Qt for BSD-licensed projects then? Great. "Creative accounting is what we want, since we didn't outlaw it."
      - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
        That doesn't sound right. The BSD licence is GPL-compatible, so you can release your code under the BSD licence and still use Qt. It would mean however that if someone were to make a proprietary fork of your project, they would no longer be permitted to use the no-charge version of Qt. They would have to get a commercial licence. I don't see anything wrong with any of this though. Edit: I wasn't clear here: Qt is also available under the LGPL, so the restrictions of the GPL aren't directly relevant.
        abjKT26nO8 6y ago
        A license is "GPL-compatible" when code released under its terms can be used in a GPL-licensed project. However, using any GPL-code, no matter if linked statically or dynamically, requires the author to release the combined work under GPL.

pabs3 6y ago

The above technique is compliant with the license of Qt (LGPL). If Qt didn't want to allow it, they would have used a different license like the GPL.

abjKT26nO8 6y ago
Then you wouldn't be able to write BSD-licensed apps using Qt at all. Creative accounting is also legal per se. It doesn't make it right.
- Nokinside 6y ago
  Why not? There's nothing in the BSD license that prevents you from mixing in code. LGPL doesn't care if you link it against BSD code. Just that the LGPL code must stay under LGPL.
  - abjKT26nO8 6y ago
    I was replying to the suggestion that Qt could be released under GPL if its authors wanted to prevent the creative accounting described by OP. Also, LGPL is already problematic, because you cannot link statically with it.
    - Nokinside 6y ago
      > Also, LGPL is already problematic, because you cannot link statically with it. Damn. I just wrote the whole top level comment to explain that you can link statically LGPL code and how to do it with details.
      - abjKT26nO8 6y ago
        That's just a workaround. Now I need to add *.o files to my deb packages. Or ship source code in deb packages? What is it? Gentoo?
        rcxdude 6y ago
        You don't, you just need to provide a way to get them (you can even specify that requests must be sent by post and charge postage for the response on a CD). It's not a 'workaround', it's literally how the license is supposed to work.
    - TomasM 6y ago
      https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynami... "If you statically link against an LGPLed library, you must also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application."
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

detaro 6y ago

It's a bit odd to label doing the thing that differentiates the LGPL as a "dick move".

phoe-krk 6y ago

> That's the equivalent of creative accounting for software developers. That's precisely what makes LGPL the LGPL. If it is a dick move, it is a FSF-endorsed, widely deployed, and widely used dick move.

abjKT26nO8 6y ago
I couldn't care less what's FSF-endorsed. They are not the company behind Qt. Perhaps ask the Qt company what they endorse?
- phoe-krk 6y ago
  This is what they want, since they release Qt under LGPL. If they wanted to prohibit static linking altogether, then they would use GPL exclusively.
  - abjKT26nO8 6y ago
    No Qt for BSD-licensed projects then? Great. "Creative accounting is what we want, since we didn't outlaw it."
    - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
      That doesn't sound right. The BSD licence is GPL-compatible, so you can release your code under the BSD licence and still use Qt. It would mean however that if someone were to make a proprietary fork of your project, they would no longer be permitted to use the no-charge version of Qt. They would have to get a commercial licence. I don't see anything wrong with any of this though. Edit: I wasn't clear here: Qt is also available under the LGPL, so the restrictions of the GPL aren't directly relevant.
      - abjKT26nO8 6y ago
        A license is "GPL-compatible" when code released under its terms can be used in a GPL-licensed project. However, using any GPL-code, no matter if linked statically or dynamically, requires the author to release the combined work under GPL.