On 07/08/18 16:04, alexander golks wrote:
Am Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:00:22 +0300
schrieb Nikos Chantziaras <rea...@gmail.com>:
On 07/08/18 01:19, Sylvain Pointeau wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 11:56 PM Giuseppe D'Angelo <dange...@gmail.com
<mailto:dange...@gmail.com>> wrote:
[...]
Out of curiosity, what prevented you from going with LGPL Qt?
On desktop it is clear but on mobile, there was no clear statement if we
have the rights or not.
Seems like LGPL is not friendly with the various stores.
It's fine on Android, since Qt for Android uses dynamic linking by
default. On iOS you only get static linking right now, and I'm not sure
if you can build Qt for iOS yourself and configure it for dynamic
linking, and whether Apple now allows dynamically linked iOS apps. The
solution of making re-linkable object files available for iOS to comply
with the LGPL is not suitable for everyone. And it's a useless solution
anyway, unless people jailbreak their Apple devices so that they can
sideload apps. Even though it satisfies LGPL requirements on your part,
it doesn't on Apple's part. So you end up in a situation where people
can claim that Apple does not have the right to distribute your
application. And that would still apply even if you used dynamic linking.
But in any case, Android seems fine when using LGPL libraries, since a)
Qt is linked to dynamically, and b) Android officially supports sideloading.
One could also just deliver the closed source object files for relinking.
this satisfies LGPL, too, doesn't it?
It was already addressed in my post. It seems to satisfy LGPL
requirements on your part, but not on Apple's part (because they don't
allow the re-linked application to run due to their DRM.)
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
