for iOS I found this: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/6463/in-2018-if-i-use-c-qt-5-10-0-to-build-a-closed-source-application-requires-ope/6495#6495
but sounds complicated for me as a mobile business app developer really sorry that there is no Indie mobile dev license from Qt I asked and got answer that they have tried this some years ago with no success Some years ago I moved from BlackBerryOS7 (JavaME) to BlackBerry10 (Cascades/Qt 4.8) This was first time I had to develop in C++ / Qt. BB10 Cascades was great UX and performance. So I also tried Qt itself, but performance of QQC1 was poor and I stopped. Later BB10 died and I tried again to develop mobile apps with Qt. At that time just first preview of QQC2 came out and I was impressed by UX and performance. So I started to develop mobille Apps using QQC2 and in the meantime my apps have native speed. Also had some sessions at dev conferences where I talked about Qt for Mobile. Always same feedback from devs: looks great, but the costs ... so now with QQC2 Qt is a great solution for mobile, but many devs cannot use it because of license - very sorry about that I'm using the startup license - but even the startup license info is hidden at Qt's web sites. If you don't know about and search explicitely for 'Qt start-up' you won't found https://www1.qt.io/start-up-plan/ Qt really has the potential to become a great player for mobile apps if license model would be changed. ekke Am 29.05.18 um 00:39 schrieb René Hansen: > I can't speak for IOS, but at least on Android, all Qt libraries are > packed inside the application apk as .so files, so no static linking > there. > > It seems the "go-to" reply on the list and from Qt in general is, > "just buy the license". Somewhat shortsighted, but understandable as > it is, Qt is a business, out to make a profit. However, and as I'm > surely not alone in thinking, I really don't get this approach towards > small-timers. The license cost just isn't feasible for a lone couch > coder with a pet project, who just want to put a $1 proprietary app on > the store. Most those kinds of apps never make much sales anyway and > Qt is quickly excluded from the list of candidate frameworks, due to > this perceived upfront cost. > > The side effect of supporting indie devs and tinkerers are a lot more > profound though. That is where the ecosystem grows. Bigger ecosystem = > more growth opportunity for the "business" down the line. > > It's a shame that many devs are left with the same impression as > yourself, and easily jump ship to React Native or similar. Qt could > easily be the defacto standard for mobile app development. It's just > not the narrative being supported by the Qt corp. Hence, you won't > find any official guide or writeup on how to publish a closed source > LGPL paid app on the app store. > > As far as I can tell though, there's really no reason why you can't > publish a paid app, which is still compliant. > > You need to let people relink against other versions of Qt, but that > simply entails making object files available on request. If ever one > is made... > > > /René > > > > > > On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 20:08 Sylvain Pointeau > <sylvain.point...@gmail.com <mailto:sylvain.point...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > My mistake, I understood the question was about to make my app GPL > compliant. > I would agree with you for the desktop version but I don't think > that it is feasible for a mobile app (is it not statically linked > BTW?) > and I also understood the app store was not GPL friendly, but > maybe my knowledge is outdated. > > Best regards, > Sylvain > > Le lun. 28 mai 2018 à 19:37, Jean-Michaël Celerier > <jeanmichael.celer...@gmail.com > <mailto:jeanmichael.celer...@gmail.com>> a écrit : > > > I thought about it but that does not work for all projects, > and I don’t see the business model in that case for my app. > > in which case would using Qt under the LGPL affect your > business model ? You don't have to publish your sources, only > under the GPL. > > > > > ------- > Jean-Michaël Celerier > http://www.jcelerier.name > > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Sylvain Pointeau > <sylvain.point...@gmail.com > <mailto:sylvain.point...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 16:21, René Hansen > <ren...@gmail.com <mailto:ren...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Or... > > Just make your app LGPL compliant and use Qt anyway. > > > I thought about it but that does not work for all > projects, and I don’t see the business model in that case > for my app. > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org <mailto:Interest@qt-project.org> > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest > > > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
