Qt, Silly Question
-
Hi and welcome
You will install Qt Libs with your app.
It cannot run without.
( its a few DLLS, not full Qt install)
http://www.tripleboot.org/?p=138You can use static linking and remove the need for DLLS but exe becomes much bigger.
Also to use this feature you must
1: Own Qt license
OR
2: Your app is open source and code is downloadable -
Hi and welcome
You will install Qt Libs with your app.
It cannot run without.
( its a few DLLS, not full Qt install)
http://www.tripleboot.org/?p=138You can use static linking and remove the need for DLLS but exe becomes much bigger.
Also to use this feature you must
1: Own Qt license
OR
2: Your app is open source and code is downloadable -
@mrjj Wrong, he can use Qt under L-GPL so he is not obligated to provide his own source code as long as he complies with the license requirements.
@picaschaf
As far as I know you cannot use
STATIC linking and closed source
with no Qt license. / open source version. -
@picaschaf
As far as I know you cannot use
STATIC linking and closed source
with no Qt license. / open source version.@mrjj IANAL. As long as the software is for "internal use" (company, organization, private) she can do with the LGPL code whatever she wants. And even beyond that, technically speaking, she doesn't have to provide her sources to the users as long as she provides binaries (object files) that the users can link with another Qt version.
-
@mrjj IANAL. As long as the software is for "internal use" (company, organization, private) she can do with the LGPL code whatever she wants. And even beyond that, technically speaking, she doesn't have to provide her sources to the users as long as she provides binaries (object files) that the users can link with another Qt version.
@Wieland
I ANAL :)
my fav expression :)
Yeah in theory, the .o files should be enough.
But why does all then use dynamic linking when using the open version?If providing .o files are considered enough to allow modification
even without access to source code ? -
@Wieland
I ANAL :)
my fav expression :)
Yeah in theory, the .o files should be enough.
But why does all then use dynamic linking when using the open version?If providing .o files are considered enough to allow modification
even without access to source code ?@mrjj Sure, that is only a theoretical option on platforms that allow dynamic linking. But AFAIK one has to statically link software for the iOS app store (or whatever Apple calls it).
-
@mrjj Sure, that is only a theoretical option on platforms that allow dynamic linking. But AFAIK one has to statically link software for the iOS app store (or whatever Apple calls it).
@Wieland
Ok. Didn't know .o files would be acceptable.
That is great news if you can use static linking and just provide a zip with .o files. -
@mrjj Sure, that is only a theoretical option on platforms that allow dynamic linking. But AFAIK one has to statically link software for the iOS app store (or whatever Apple calls it).
@Wieland
Sure, that is only a theoretical option on platforms that allow dynamic linking.
I already had this discussion some time ago. You can do whatever linking you want, the only thing that's different on Apple's OS-es appears to be the "missing" statically built runtime; so you can only link the runtime dynamically (which, as I pointed out then is how I think it should be in the first place). But, as I don't use OS X, iOS nor iWhatever, you're very much welcome to mistrust me ... :D
