On Wed, 2019-08-21 at 21:22 +0200, Elvis Stansvik wrote: > Why not just ship those DLLs? I wouldn't call that "verboten" > (forbidden), just a bit more to do for deployment.
It's not "verboten", but it's also not as straightforward as redistributing free software like MinGW. From https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/productinfo/2015-red istribution-vs : "If you have a validly licensed copy of such software, you may copy and distribute with your program the unmodified form of the files listed below, subject to the License Terms for the software." This sounds to me like you have to download a copy of Visual Studio before redistributing the DLLs, and agree to all of the licensing terms. (I highly doubt that this would/could actually be enforced in any meaningful way, but for people who are picky about open source vs proprietary licenses, this is still another unwanted hoop to jump through.) On the other hand, the terms of MinGW are quite clear: it's an MIT-like license which allows you to redistribute with only minimal requirements (retain the copyright notice) ( http://www.mingw.org/license ). Kyle _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
