On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 12:51:59PM +0200, Joost Verburg wrote: > Andre Poenitz wrote: > >So this is arguably a breach of the GPL unless the installed > >software could be considered as a non-integral part of the > >installer. > > > >It's safer to make a Qt4 installer with the GPL'd Qt4/Win. > > I think the Qt license is designed to be compatible with this situation, > we should check that.
The problem is not Qt in this case but the GPL. Assuming the installed software is considered an integral part of the installer, the installer would have to be released with a GPL-compatible license. I am not sure how this could be achieved with Qt (commercial). > Anyway, as long as we don't have someone with a > commercial Qt license, this doesn't matter. I have a commercial licence. However, I am reluctant here because there is a clearly better option with using Qt4. Andre'
