[quote author="Andre" date="1310360211"]
[quote]Also, all answers focus on technical matters, while the proposal could help with some legal issues as well, for closed sourced applications developed with LGPLed Qt.[/quote]
What legal issues, exactly? LGPL explictly allows you to distribute binary versions of the libraries in question, and as long as you did not modify the sources, you are not required to assume responsibility for their distribution in source form. If you are not specific, claiming that there are legal issues surrounding LGPL is just spreading FUD, IMHO.
Do you really Andre think that "LGPL explictly allows you to distribute binary versions of the libraries in question, and as long as you did not modify the sources, you are not required to assume responsibility for their distribution in source form."?
Well, I am not a lawyer either, but what was the point on which you think I wasn't specific? I have placed some specific questions on the issue "does someone who distributes LGPLed dlls with their application has to distribute their unchanged source as well?" at http://developer.qt.nokia.com/wiki/LicensingQuestions (it has been edited by others as well) and after many months no answer was given. I am making very responsible questions and proposals. I have not "claimed ... legal issues surrounding(sic) LGPL" as you mentioned. IMHO, things that are "spreading FUD" are the ones I read in your answer. :-)
One might also be interested in viewing http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html (last accessed by me: Monday, July 11, 2011), and pay special attention at the paragraph
"When you distribute the library with your application (or on its own), you need to include source code for the library. But if your application instead requires users to obtain the library on their own, you don't need to provide source code for the library."
Since I am not a lawyer I do not know if this is an analogous situation with the one we are discussing, so read and decide for yourself.
Maybe I am wrong! So yes, IMHO, my proposal will "free" developers from the obligation of the distribution of the dlls (as well as the source code of the dlls), so I think a legal issue is associated with this proposal.