@Eeli-K That would mean you can't use github at all then since it isn't under your control. If github is considered "under your control" you can just fork Qt to your github account though.
I mean along these lines though no web server you don't actually own is truly under your control. And even then you are at the mercy of your internet provider even if it is physically your system. My company has quite a few web servers, but since things like AWS came around I don't buy actual hardware any more. AWS is not technically under my control even though I have root access to all the systems that are "mine".
You're right though. I don't think it would really be an issue, but people have sued over smaller things. The safe way is definitely throw up a copy on your own web server. Knowing it will never be downloaded by anyone just seems to make it such a waste of resources though.
@VRonin you probably need a software copyright layer to answer that :)
My totally layman understanding (and now I take my work hat off, as this is code owned by my employer) is that in Finland (and probably most of the EU) you would be safe if the code you are copying is practically the only way to do it, and it is so simple that it is the only reasonable solution to your problem, and that the part you are copying is short enough that could simply re-write it anytime, and you aren't copy pasting anything else from the same work.
The problem is that everything I'm saying above is way too hand-wavy to be of any use. It's always a case-by-case situation.
Linking has nothing to do with it. It is a question of does the copy-pasted material automatically bring it's license with it to your code.
If you wanted to be utterly safe, you would ask your friend, who has not seen the Qt code to implement a paintEvent once, and then use that. He probably would come up with about the same seven to ten lines of code. (clean room is the only way to be totally sure)
@VRonin Thanks for the answer.
Just to be sure, this is my output when I run otool -L on my .app
Does that look ok?
@executable_path/../Frameworks/libopencv_core.3.1.dylib (compatibility version 3.1.0, current version 3.1.0)
@executable_path/../Frameworks/libopencv_imgcodecs.3.1.dylib (compatibility version 3.1.0, current version 3.1.0)
@executable_path/../Frameworks/libopencv_highgui.3.1.dylib (compatibility version 3.1.0, current version 3.1.0)
@executable_path/../Frameworks/libopencv_imgproc.3.1.dylib (compatibility version 3.1.0, current version 3.1.0)
@executable_path/../Frameworks/libopencv_objdetect.3.1.dylib (compatibility version 3.1.0, current version 3.1.0)
@rpath/QtWidgets.framework/Versions/5/QtWidgets (compatibility version 5.6.0, current version 5.6.0)
@rpath/QtGui.framework/Versions/5/QtGui (compatibility version 5.6.0, current version 5.6.0)
@rpath/QtCore.framework/Versions/5/QtCore (compatibility version 5.6.0, current version 5.6.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/OpenGL.framework/Versions/A/OpenGL (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/AGL.framework/Versions/A/AGL (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
/usr/lib/libc++.1.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 120.1.0)
/usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1226.10.1)
it's still for small business (which I'm not),
Personnaly a small Qt logo on the front (top left) + a big back design on a black t-shirt (2016 edition).
For the RPi : Mainly it's the toolchain, ideally, having it as a target like Android (being able to d/l it from Maintenance Tool) would be awesome (and would save a lot of time, instead of having to handbuild it for cross-compile).
Basically making things simple and easy.
Can i use the opensource version of Qt Creator under the LGPL to make closed source software and sell it, as long as the Qt libraries are dynamically linked?
I presume you mean the LGPL version of Qt (the libraries), not Qt Creator (the IDE)? The Qt Company is happy with what you have described: http://www.qt.io/faq/
"The LGPL allows you to keep the source code of your application private as long as it is “work that uses” the library. Dynamic linking is usually recommended here."
Note: Nobody really knows the legal answer to this question from a broad LGPL point of view, because this has never been dealt with by the courts before.
If i use MinGW is anything i compile with it then restricted to the GPL
No. The tools are GPL, but your code doesn't have to be GPL.
If i use LLVM (not tried it yet but seems promising), will i have to compile Qt Creator, and the Qt framework with CLang(++) in order to then compile my Qt projects with CLang?
You don't have to compile Qt Creator.
You might have to compile Qt... I'm not sure, but I think the GCC version of Qt is compatible with clang.
i can then use the same setup of Qt creator/framework as well as the same compiler, meaning i then don't for instance use MSVC for windows and gcc for linux but can use LLVM for both.
Frankly, this has zero impact on my development workflow. I use MSVC on Windows and GCC on Linux, but my code can be shared between the two machines without any modifications, and the way I use Qt Creator is exactly the same on both machines.
@PSI_lbc The only thing I did to get the purchasing demo to work was to upload the APK to Google Play, create in-app purchase identifiers which corresponds to the two identfiers found in the Hangman example and then test the APK as a alpha/beta tester.
Thanks, I will speak to them soon, the indie license seems promising but I wish they had QtTranasactions ;/, oh well, my new problem is Qt fails to compile my APK, something dealing with java but I don't know much about java, and the console isn't helping me much.