How to use binarycreator to create an statically linked offline installer in Linux?
-
Howdy,
title says it all! I succeed fine to build my linux installer executable but I'd like to have it statically linked. I cannot expect users to have Qt installed on their systems prior to downloading the installer. I could not find anything about that in the docs? How do others deal with this?
cheers & thanks in advance :)
-
You don't need a static build. You just need to deploy your binary inside the installer. https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/linux-deployment.html
Or use linuxdeployqt to create a self-contained AppImage / DEB / RPM package.
And remember that locking down Qt violates LGPL license, so you either need to go GPL, or use Qt Commercial license.
-
You don't need a static build. You just need to deploy your binary inside the installer. https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/linux-deployment.html
Or use linuxdeployqt to create a self-contained AppImage / DEB / RPM package.
And remember that locking down Qt violates LGPL license, so you either need to go GPL, or use Qt Commercial license.
@sierdzio thanks for your help... appreciate it. Could you elaborate a bit on the "locking Qt down" licensing issue? When exactly is LGPL violated? Whenever I bundle precompiled Qt libraries with an Qt application? Does it mean I can't use something like appimage with Qt LGPL and an Apache 2.0 licensed Qt app?
-
@sierdzio thanks for your help... appreciate it. Could you elaborate a bit on the "locking Qt down" licensing issue? When exactly is LGPL violated? Whenever I bundle precompiled Qt libraries with an Qt application? Does it mean I can't use something like appimage with Qt LGPL and an Apache 2.0 licensed Qt app?
@caetydid said in How to use binarycreator to create an statically linked offline installer in Linux?:
@sierdzio thanks for your help... appreciate it. Could you elaborate a bit on the "locking Qt down" licensing issue? When exactly is LGPL violated? Whenever I bundle precompiled Qt libraries with an Qt application? Does it mean I can't use something like appimage with Qt LGPL and an Apache 2.0 licensed Qt app?
LGPL requires you to allow your users to swap Qt libraries for their own. An AppImage bundles them all into a single package that can't be broken up - so it does indeed violate LGPL. But! It does not mean that is the end of story. If your app is available in source (or object file) format, then (with proper readme) your users can compile it on their own, and link any Qt version they like - so if that is true, I'd say LGPL is not broken. Or if you'll use Qt Installer Framework, then users will also be able to replace the .so files inside the installation folder. There are many options here.
Regarding LGPL - Apache compatibility, I have zero knowledge on that, so won't comment. Perhaps this will shed some light on the topic for you.
And of course, I'm not a lawyer so treat all I said with great dose of mistrust. I may be very wrong.
-
@caetydid said in How to use binarycreator to create an statically linked offline installer in Linux?:
@sierdzio thanks for your help... appreciate it. Could you elaborate a bit on the "locking Qt down" licensing issue? When exactly is LGPL violated? Whenever I bundle precompiled Qt libraries with an Qt application? Does it mean I can't use something like appimage with Qt LGPL and an Apache 2.0 licensed Qt app?
LGPL requires you to allow your users to swap Qt libraries for their own. An AppImage bundles them all into a single package that can't be broken up - so it does indeed violate LGPL. But! It does not mean that is the end of story. If your app is available in source (or object file) format, then (with proper readme) your users can compile it on their own, and link any Qt version they like - so if that is true, I'd say LGPL is not broken. Or if you'll use Qt Installer Framework, then users will also be able to replace the .so files inside the installation folder. There are many options here.
Regarding LGPL - Apache compatibility, I have zero knowledge on that, so won't comment. Perhaps this will shed some light on the topic for you.
And of course, I'm not a lawyer so treat all I said with great dose of mistrust. I may be very wrong.
@sierdzio Since I plan to release all sources under LGPL and/or apache I understand it should not be a problem. Anyone will be able to install the app without using the binary installer, I just want to offer it to inexperienced users to ease installation.
-
@sierdzio Since I plan to release all sources under LGPL and/or apache I understand it should not be a problem. Anyone will be able to install the app without using the binary installer, I just want to offer it to inexperienced users to ease installation.
@caetydid said in How to use binarycreator to create an statically linked offline installer in Linux?:
@sierdzio Since I plan to release all sources under LGPL and/or apache I understand it should not be a problem. Anyone will be able to install the app without using the binary installer, I just want to offer it to inexperienced users to ease installation.
I think that is fine then.
