Re: [Interest] Licensing

Hi, If there is misleading or incorrect information in the website, please let us know: https://www.qt.io/contact-us/other Open-source licensing is a complex topic, so it is always easiest to look into it case by case as it depends a lot upon what and how is developed. The qt.io website

Re: [Interest] Licensing

On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 11:43:58 PDT Uwe Rathmann wrote: > Of course this information is useless for someone who wants to change > the license - the decision for the LGPL had been made long before. It is > about sending the message that you should not do LGPL, if you don't want > to be banned

Re: [Interest] Licensing

Am Wed, 9 Oct 2019 20:43:58 +0200 schrieb Uwe Rathmann : > Of course this information is useless for someone who wants to change > the license - the decision for the LGPL had been made long before. It is > about sending the message that you should not do LGPL, if you don't want > to be banned

Re: [Interest] Licensing

On 10/9/19 5:32 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: All cases are good. It just depends on how much you pay. Today: "If you have already started the development with an open-source version of Qt and wish to move to a commercial license you need to have a written explicit permission from The Qt

Re: [Interest] Licensing

On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 05:48:52 PDT Uwe Rathmann wrote: > > Similar rule is related to not being ok to develop the solution with > > free version and then ship under commercial one. We do allow > > migration from open-source to commercial - of course. The case by > > case acceptance rule is

Re: [Interest] Licensing

Hi Tuukka, This is not about making closed source applications with LGPL licensed Qt, or whatever kind of business is done with such. Of course this thread is also about these options - I'm criticizing the way how the Qt Company tries to prevent users from taking this route. The point is

Re: [Interest] Licensing

Hi Uwe, This is not about making closed source applications with LGPL licensed Qt, or whatever kind of business is done with such. The point is that Qt as a dual licensed technology has some rules related to the commercial license option. One of these rules is that the whole team should go

Re: [Interest] Licensing

Am Wed, 9 Oct 2019 11:05:08 +0200 schrieb Uwe Rathmann : > But I have a strong opinion about using FUD as sales strategy: > > - intimidation paragraphs > - blacklisting projects that follow the rules of the LGPL properly > - giving wrong information ( check the video ) about the LGPL > > Uwe

Re: [Interest] Licensing

On 10/8/19 7:13 PM, Ilya Diallo wrote: In the latter case, the rational is (I guess) to prevent a company, say, to work with 20 developers for 3 years on an OSS Qt license, then switch to commercial when it's time to ship the product and the team is reduced to a core maintenance crew. That

Re: [Interest] Licensing

for all of the team’s problems and to get accelerated bug fixes – and of course to ship with. Yours, Tuukka From: Interest on behalf of Ilya Diallo Date: Tuesday, 8 October 2019 at 20.16 To: Melinda Seifert Cc: Uwe Rathmann , "interest@qt-project.org" Subject: Re:

Re: [Interest] Licensing

It would maybe be useful to clarify what his mistake is ? >From what I understand Uwe mixes "contributing to open source project" and "using open source Qt for a closed project". In the former case, of course he's welcome to buy commercial licences for whatever project he'll be working on. In the

Re: [Interest] Licensing questions for iOS and Android

Am Tue, 8 Oct 2019 10:16:45 +0300 schrieb Vyacheslav Lanovets : > 2 persons use *Mac* to make the app work on iOS (static linking!). what about going lgpl and delivering object files to enable relinking statically with another qt version? -- /* * Your lucky number has been disconnected. */

Re: [Interest] Licensing questions for iOS and Android

Hi Vyacheslav, Where are you located? It is probably easiest that our regional sales team or local reseller is in contact to discuss. Commercial Qt licensing is developer based, so each person working on the same project (e.g. same end user application) needs to have a commercial license.

Re: [Interest] Licensing questions for iOS and Android

> I hope to hear expert opinions on the following. > > Let's say the company has 10 developers who develop a Mobile app for > consumer phones. > > 2 persons use *Mac* to make the app work on iOS (static linking!). > Another 2 persons work from PCs on supporting Android specifics > (shared

Re: [Interest] Licensing

Uwe, You are completely mistaken! I'm more than happy to discuss this with you. My phone number is listed below. In the meantime please view https://www.qt.io/faq/ 2.13. If I have started development of a project using the open source version (LGPL), can I later purchase a commercial version

Re: [Interest] Licensing questions for iOS and Android

Il 08/10/19 10:24, Yves Maurischat ha scritto: I dont think that you'll get a definitive answer from this list as The other side of the coin: this list is NOT for sales or detailed licensing questions. It's about technical questions related to the usage of Qt (and, specifically, the parts

Re: [Interest] Licensing questions for iOS and Android

Let me answer that shortly with the gist of severeal other threads on this list: "It depends. Please contact the sales representatives of The Qt Company." I dont think that you'll get a definitive answer from this list as licensing seems to depend on your project, the mood of the sales rep,

Re: [Interest] Licensing

On 10/8/19 1:21 AM, Melinda Seifert wrote: You can use commercial if you previously used Open Source but it’s on a case by case basis and you need to get approval from the Qt company. Like you need to get approval from the Qt company when not having been Open Source before - it is the basic

Re: [Interest] Licensing

Nikos, Actually that is incorrect. You can use commercial if you previously used Open Source but it’s on a case by case basis and you need to get approval from the Qt company. Sent from my iPhone Regards, Melinda Seifert Director of the Americas melinda.seif...@qt.io (O) 617-377-7918 (C)

Re: [Interest] Licensing

Note that there is (or was?) a restriction in the commercial license. You are not allowed to use commercial Qt if you previously uses open source Qt in the project. So you might not even be allowed to switch from open source to commercial. Not sure if that (very) weird term has been removed

Re: [Interest] Licensing

Thanks Giuseppe, Jerome, and Uwe. All of this makes sense to me. I will have to talk to our software and management people and decide what our best route is. Incidentally, we will also need FDA certification for this product. This is all a bit preliminary. The product is still in development.

Re: [Interest] Licensing

Il 07/10/19 07:55, Uwe Rathmann ha scritto: Ah yes, sorry. My response was initially more explicit about FUD, before I decided, that it is not worth the effort. Huh? It was not my intention to spread FUD. I'm not telling anyone "buy a license, you never know..." or "stick to LGPL, don't

Re: [Interest] Licensing

On 10/6/19 12:03 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest wrote: Hey, I linked it two emails ago :-) Ah yes, sorry. My response was initially more explicit about FUD, before I decided, that it is not worth the effort. Uwe ___ Interest mailing list

Re: [Interest] Licensing

Il 06/10/19 11:56, Uwe Rathmann ha scritto: Maybe this presentation helps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwTlCBbB3RY Hey, I linked it two emails ago :-) -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33

Re: [Interest] Licensing

On 10/5/19 7:57 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest wrote: Anyhow: please direct these comments to your Qt sales representative; this is NOT a sales mailing list (in other words, chances are high that no one from sales ever reads these messages). Asking sales people if you don't need to buy a

Re: [Interest] Licensing

Hi, Il 05/10/19 19:19, Jérôme Godbout ha scritto: This is the true problem: when you need a lawyer, a sale rep and Qt support just to determine what you should do or buy, you know this is one hell of a brain f*** problem. I think Qt might just be missing sales because of this. Make it clear,

Re: [Interest] Licensing

framework, but the licensing is a mine field. From: Interest on behalf of Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest Sent: Saturday, October 5, 2019 12:16 PM To: interest@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Interest] Licensing Hi, Il 05/10/19 13:17, Colin Worth ha scritto: > M

Re: [Interest] Licensing

Hi, Il 05/10/19 13:17, Colin Worth ha scritto: My company has developed embedded and cross-platform GUI software using free open-source QT, the latest version. We are using the libraries that are included with the standard open-source installation. Soon we will freeze the version number,

[Interest] Licensing

Apologies if this something that’s been asked many times before. My company has developed embedded and cross-platform GUI software using free open-source QT, the latest version. We are using the libraries that are included with the standard open-source installation. Soon we will freeze the

Re: [Interest] Licensing questions when using shared Qt-library on iOS

Am Wed, 16 May 2018 10:49:06 + schrieb "Trillmann, Jens" : > every other file in the platformplugin is LGPL licensed. From my > understanding I would violate the LGPL license if I would try to > distribute the app in this form, because a user could not easily

Re: [Interest] Licensing questions when using shared Qt-library on iOS

> From my understanding I would violate the LGPL license if I would try to distribute the app in this form, because a user could not easily swap the provided Qt-library with his own. The app itself is under the non-compatible EUPL. You can ship your app's .o files to allow other people to relink

[Interest] Licensing questions when using shared Qt-library on iOS

Hi, I'm currently trying to link our app on iOS dynamically against Qt. From the technical standpoint everything seems to be working, but I have a problem with the licensing. I would like to conform to the LGPL license, meaning that I want to link against all Qt parts dynamically, but I have

Re: [Interest] Licensing PITA

On 5/5/2017 12:03 AM, Rainer Wiesenfarth wrote: 2017-05-04 20:02 GMT+02:00 Bob Hood >: I am trying to create a commercial, static build of 5.7.1 ​I ran into a similar problem with building a commercial Qt 5.6.x ​from the Git repo. This does

Re: [Interest] Licensing PITA

On 5/5/2017 4:11 AM, André Somers wrote: This sounds like exactly the kind of issue you'd contact your commercial support for? You're probably right, André. Licensed users who build Qt for themselves appear to hold "mythical creature" status. :)

Re: [Interest] Licensing PITA

Op 04/05/2017 om 20:02 schreef Bob Hood: > I have a legitimate Qt license (just renewed, in fact). I am trying > to create a commercial, static build of 5.7.1, and the build output > keeps coming up with: > > Licensee > License ID.. > Product

Re: [Interest] Licensing PITA

2017-05-04 20:02 GMT+02:00 Bob Hood : > I am trying to create a commercial, static build of 5.7.1 ​I ran into a similar problem with building a commercial Qt 5.6.x ​from the Git repo. This does not work out-of-the-box as the Git source seems to be targeted on the GPL'ed

[Interest] Licensing PITA

I have a legitimate Qt license (just renewed, in fact). I am trying to create a commercial, static build of 5.7.1, and the build output keeps coming up with: Licensee License ID.. Product license.Preview Edition Expiry Date. I

[Interest] Licensing Questions

Hi I team and I are planning to release our desktop application that is dynamically linked to the Qt library. As I understand it this means that, if requested by a customer, I must make the source code for Qt available. In addition I must make the object code or source code for the application

Re: [Interest] Licensing Questions

Hi Sarah, If I understand it correctly regarding the licensing issue, you may want to use LGPL(as opposed to GPL), that does not require you to release the source code, however, perhaps somebody who are more experienced than me can explain on this, because I'm also interested in knowing this

Re: [Interest] Licensing Questions

On 2 April 2014 12:55, alfa alfarobi0...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Sarah, If I understand it correctly regarding the licensing issue, you may want to use LGPL(as opposed to GPL), that does not require you to release the source code, however, perhaps somebody who are more experienced than me can

Re: [Interest] Licensing Questions

Thanks everyone From: sierd...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 13:08:38 +0200 Subject: Re: [Interest] Licensing Questions To: alfarobi0...@yahoo.com CC: qtsa...@outlook.com; interest@qt-project.org On 2 April 2014 12:55, alfa alfarobi0...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Sarah, If I understand

Re: [Interest] Licensing Questions

) -- -- Message: 2 Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:49:29 +0200 From: Jan janus...@gmx.net Subject: Re: [Qt-interest] Licensing To: qt-inter...@trolltech.com Message-ID: 4c065359.70...@gmx.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1