Well, this was my question here. What makes you think, you violate the LGPL in this case?
>You *cannot* publish (for free or at a cost) Qt based proprietary SW >on Google play store w/o a Qt license. It would violate the LGPL. The >Qt license is a (costly) LGPL substitute. > >Chris > > > >> >> /René >> >> >> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 14:50 Sylvain Pointeau ><sylvain.point...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:30 PM Sylvain Pointeau ><sylvain.point...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Qt is free on desktop, but it is not free on mobile, which is a >real showstopper for me and many others. >>>> >>>> Le mar. 19 févr. 2019 à 20:12, ich <a...@golks.de> a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> Qt is free, too. >>> >>> >>> I received few personal emails to ask me why am I writing that Qt is >not free on mobile. >>> >>> I am sorry but this is the message from the Qt company, please show >me one official statement that Qt is free to use on mobile. >>> I would be really glad and finally use Qt instead of looking for >alternatives. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Sylvain >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Interest mailing list >>> Interest@qt-project.org >>> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Interest mailing list >> Interest@qt-project.org >> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest >_______________________________________________ >Interest mailing list >Interest@qt-project.org >https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet. _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest