Static Compile w/o Commercial License
-
As far as I'm aware, I would need to purchase the commercial license in order to static compile my software built with Qt and distribute it commercially. (Closed source)
But what constitutes as commercially?
What if my software is 100% free? Can I distribute it still with a closed source statically compiled without a commercial license?
-
Can I distribute it still with a closed source statically compiled without a commercial license?
No.
It doesn't matter if your product is free or paid for. The limitation of static linking is due to the requirements of (L)GPL license. In short if you go with the (L)GPL the user needs to be able to link her own version of the lib (i.e. swap dlls for example). This can't be achieved with static linking so it doesn't satisfy the requirements. Commercial license means you can do whatever you want and put any restrictions you want on your product. -
As far as I'm aware, I would need to purchase the commercial license in order to static compile my software built with Qt and distribute it commercially. (Closed source)
But what constitutes as commercially?
What if my software is 100% free? Can I distribute it still with a closed source statically compiled without a commercial license?
@oPryzeLP said in Static Compile w/o Commercial License:
As far as I'm aware, I would need to purchase the commercial license in order to static compile my software built with Qt and distribute it commercially. (Closed source)
That's a false assumption. Please read LGPL carefully, especally section 6 in case of LGPL2, or section 4 in case of LGPL 3. You can see that it does not mention any difference beteween static and shared libraries.
-
@oPryzeLP said in Static Compile w/o Commercial License:
As far as I'm aware, I would need to purchase the commercial license in order to static compile my software built with Qt and distribute it commercially. (Closed source)
That's a false assumption. Please read LGPL carefully, especally section 6 in case of LGPL2, or section 4 in case of LGPL 3. You can see that it does not mention any difference beteween static and shared libraries.
@Konstantin-Tokarev right, but doesn't the fact that I want my source closed limit me?
-
@oPryzeLP said in Static Compile w/o Commercial License:
As far as I'm aware, I would need to purchase the commercial license in order to static compile my software built with Qt and distribute it commercially. (Closed source)
That's a false assumption. Please read LGPL carefully, especally section 6 in case of LGPL2, or section 4 in case of LGPL 3. You can see that it does not mention any difference beteween static and shared libraries.
@Konstantin-Tokarev I do not understand your point. LGPL3.4.d gives two options: either ship with source or use shared libraries and option 1 clearly does not include static usage.
-
@Konstantin-Tokarev I do not understand your point. LGPL3.4.d gives two options: either ship with source or use shared libraries and option 1 clearly does not include static usage.
@_PIB "Corresponding Application Code" in 4.d.0 doesn't necessary mean source code, it may be object files.
-
@Konstantin-Tokarev right, but doesn't the fact that I want my source closed limit me?
@oPryzeLP said in Static Compile w/o Commercial License:
@Konstantin-Tokarev right, but doesn't the fact that I want my source closed limit me?
It creates additional work for you in case you insist on static linking (see above). Also, object files are easier to reverse-engineer than executables and shared libraries.
-
@_PIB "Corresponding Application Code" in 4.d.0 doesn't necessary mean source code, it may be object files.
