Qt 5.1.1 LGPL version compliance
-
I understand that the current Qt version (5.9) may be used under the LGPLv3 terms.
However, I need to use an older version of Qt (5.1) for specific reasons. As far as I can tell, this may be used under the LGPL v2.1 terms ( http://qt.apidoc.info/5.1.1/qtdoc-online/licensing.html ).
Is this correct? Does anyone have any experience in this area?
Thanks & regards.
-
Sorry Eddy - to clarify - can Qt 5.1 still be used under the terms and conditions of LGPL 2.1? (even though newer versions require LGPL 3.0 adherence).
Thanks
@Qwerty123 See here http://qt.apidoc.info/5.1.1/qtdoc-online/licensing.html
Also in Qt source code files you will find a header mentioning the licenses. -
@jsulm
Qwerty123 used that link in his first thread. ;-)@Qwerty123
If you use a code version licensed under LGPLv2.1 it still remains under LGPLv2.1 now. (= Qt5.1)
That work state of Qt has it's freedom and restrictions defined then. The link you are referring to is still in order, otherwise it wouldn't be there anymore.New modules of Qt are under GPLv3.0 now, but some modules are also GPLv2.
As you can see in the licensing comparison tableSo if you need the new goodies, you have to comply with GPLv3.0.
Out of curiosity, what parts of Qt are you needing?
Eddy
-
@jsulm
Qwerty123 used that link in his first thread. ;-)@Qwerty123
If you use a code version licensed under LGPLv2.1 it still remains under LGPLv2.1 now. (= Qt5.1)
That work state of Qt has it's freedom and restrictions defined then. The link you are referring to is still in order, otherwise it wouldn't be there anymore.New modules of Qt are under GPLv3.0 now, but some modules are also GPLv2.
As you can see in the licensing comparison tableSo if you need the new goodies, you have to comply with GPLv3.0.
Out of curiosity, what parts of Qt are you needing?
Eddy
-
@jsulm
I understand his question as " because Qt 5.9 is now under GPLv3.0, does that mean that Qt5.1 is not under LGPLv2.1 anymore ?"Qt 5.1 was released under LGPL 2.1, so LGPL 2.1 applies.
is the correct answer
Eddy