Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Mar 2011 15:50 UTC, submitted by Geoff Floding
Qt Since the web has a tendency to overstate things: no, Nokia is not selling Qt. Today, Nokia announced that Digia will acquire the Qt Commercial software licensing and professional services business from Nokia. So I repeat: Nokia is not selling Qt.
Thread beginning with comment 465065
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

Forgive me if my GPL license interpretation is off, but doesn't distributing the libraries ( in the form of embedded hardware and/or a full installation program) require them to also provide the source code for the qt libraries?

If so is that what people object to in those industries? it seems simple enough, but maybe they just don't want to deal with "the hassle" of doing it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

Forgive me if my GPL license interpretation is off, but doesn't distributing the libraries ( in the form of embedded hardware and/or a full installation program) require them to also provide the source code for the qt libraries?

Let's notice that you are answering a comment that I wrote about the LGPL, not the GPL.

"Qt users may create proprietary applications that dynamically link to the LGPL-licensed Qt libraries [...]". There's more in
http://qt.nokia.com/about/licensing/frequently-asked-questions/

Reply Parent Score: 6

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Ok, let me repost my entire post,with a single letter change to specify the particular Gnu public license I was referring to.

Forgive me if my LGPL license interpretation is off, but doesn't distributing the libraries ( in the form of embedded hardware and/or a full installation program) require them to also provide the source code for the qt libraries?

If so is that what people object to in those industries? it seems simple enough, but maybe they just don't want to deal with "the hassle" of doing it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

No.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

There were two questions posed. I'm unsure which one you were answering. Care to clarify?

No, a distributor of LGPL binaries is not required to distribute source as well?

Or

No, that isn't the reason why these select industries do not want to use LGPL licensed software?

Edited 2011-03-07 20:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

That's one way to look at it. They can hack up the Qt libs without providing the source code.

I'm thinking it means they want someone to sue when everything goes south. That and priority support with SLAs.

Reply Parent Score: 1