Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Oct 2010 22:22 UTC, submitted by vivainio
Thread beginning with comment 446852
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: I don't like dual lience.
by phoenix on Sun 24th Oct 2010 19:06
in reply to "RE[2]: I don't like dual lience."
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.
RE[4]: I don't like dual lience.
by vivainio on Sun 24th Oct 2010 19:43
in reply to "RE[3]: I don't like dual lience."





Member since:
2008-12-26
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.