Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Oct 2010 22:22 UTC, submitted by vivainio
Thread beginning with comment 446591
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I don't like dual lience.
by Nth_Man on Fri 22nd Oct 2010 18:51
in reply to "I don't like dual lience."
RE[2]: I don't like dual lience.
by vivainio on Sat 23rd Oct 2010 20:31
in reply to "RE: I don't like dual lience."
If someone wants to share their code, license it free, that's ok.
If someone wants to take advantages of free/libre software... but deny this to others... support Qt at least.
It's 2010, Qt is under LGPL. It's perfectly okay to use Qt with closed source software without paying anyone.
RE: I don't like dual lience.
by phoenix on Sun 24th Oct 2010 18:52
in reply to "I don't like dual lience."
Is it really so hard to understand?
If you use QT to create an app that you sell, then you need the commercial QT license.
If you use QT to create apps that are only used internally (never distributed outside the company, never sold to anyone, etc), then you use the LGPL license.
If you use QT to create an app that you give away, you use the LGPL license.
Edited 2010-10-24 18:53 UTC
RE[2]: I don't like dual lience.
by vivainio on Sun 24th Oct 2010 19:03
in reply to "RE: I don't like dual lience."
Is it really so hard to understand?
If you use QT to create an app that you sell, then you need the commercial QT license.
If you use QT to create apps that are only used internally (never distributed outside the company, never sold to anyone, etc), then you use the LGPL license.
If you use QT to create an app that you give away, you use the LGPL license.
If you use QT to create an app that you sell, then you need the commercial QT license.
If you use QT to create apps that are only used internally (never distributed outside the company, never sold to anyone, etc), then you use the LGPL license.
If you use QT to create an app that you give away, you use the LGPL license.
This is incorrect. You can use LGPL'd code in paid applications without disclosing the source code. That's the point of LGPL, as opposed to GPL.
Off the top of my head, the only ones needing commercial license are people that need to statically link to Qt for whatever reason (deploying paid apps on iPhone perhaps?). Just forget that the commercial license exists and you'll be fine.





Member since:
2009-05-06
Autodesk are taking Maya all QT, and the company I work at couldn't be sure of the license situation, so felt they had to buy a development license to develop QT Maya UIs. I don't believe they had to, as QT could be used LGPL, and we aren't talking about software that is released, its tools to help internal Maya artists. As it was decided we had to buy development license to use QT, there was the normal BS about do we really need it bought, can't we just not use QT, etc etc. In the end QT is now bought and used, but it was a faff. One that wouldn't have happened if it wasn't dual license. Keep it simple, use one license. Free or not free, no if's or but's.