Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Oct 2010 22:22 UTC, submitted by vivainio
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu This is kind of... Well, good news, I suppose? It depends on where you allegiances lie, but it seems like Ubuntu is warming up to the idea of using Qt to develop applications. It's no secret that Qt is a far more advanced development framework than Gtk+, so it only makes sense for Ubuntu - a GNOME/Gtk+ distribution - is looking at it.
Thread beginning with comment 446852
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: I don't like dual lience.
by vivainio on Sun 24th Oct 2010 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't like dual lience."
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

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.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Where did I say anything about source code?

If you sell a QT-based app, you need the commercial license.

If you don't sell it, you don't need the commercial license.

And, if you are a commercial company, but don't release your software to anyone, using them internally, then you don't need the commercial license.

Reply Parent Score: 2

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

If you sell a QT-based app, you need the commercial license.

No you don't. It's normal LGPL license like with Gtk+, look it up.

Reply Parent Score: 2