Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Tuukka Turunen]

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 tries to give as accurate guidance as is meaningful for the generic 
case and without going too deep into the details. 

Yours,

Tuukka

On 09/10/2019, 22.27, "Interest on behalf of alexander golks" 
 wrote:

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 later.

well, i'm 100% behind you. but this is not useless. 
at least you know, that the qc may reject your request.
on the other side, they may not. depends.

for me, presonally, there are few reasons to go commercial.

the information on their qt.io website was ever misguiding, several years 
already, and seems to continue.
but i think due to the nature of the "company" (shame on you!).

so, in turn, i hope some guys on this list will get some some ideas about 
(l)gpl theory.

+2

-- 
/*
 *  Q:  Why haven't you graduated yet?
 *  A:  Well, Dad, I could have finished years ago, but I wanted
 *my dissertation to rhyme.
 */


___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Thiago Macieira]

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 later.

The only way to find out is to actually call the sales people. As Tuukka and 
Melinda replied, it'll be a case-by-case analysis.

> > [Note: I am not an employee of the Qt Company, I don't know their sales
> > strategy today.
> 
> And you don't care ?

I do care. I also trust them to be doing a good job.

Blacklisting projects serves no purpose. That's not the practice. I don't know 
where you came to that idea. "reserves the right to grant the permission" can 
be worded better, but I can't read it as there being a black list. I would 
personally word it saying that it can be done after negotiation.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel System Software Products



___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[alexander golks]

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 later.

well, i'm 100% behind you. but this is not useless. 
at least you know, that the qc may reject your request.
on the other side, they may not. depends.

for me, presonally, there are few reasons to go commercial.

the information on their qt.io website was ever misguiding, several years 
already, and seems to continue.
but i think due to the nature of the "company" (shame on you!).

so, in turn, i hope some guys on this list will get some some ideas about 
(l)gpl theory.

+2

-- 
/*
 *  Q:  Why haven't you graduated yet?
 *  A:  Well, Dad, I could have finished years ago, but I wanted
 *my dissertation to rhyme.
 */


pgpQwy8FJ9LQ8.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Uwe Rathmann]

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 Company to facilitate this 
change. The Qt Company reserves the right to grant the permission at its 
own discretion." ( see https://www.qt.io/faq 3.13 ).


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 later.



[Note: I am not an employee of the Qt Company, I don't know their sales
strategy today.


And you don't care ?

Uwe


___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Thiago Macieira]

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 there to avoid misuse.
> 
> Not being clear about what cases are good and which are bad is FUD.

All cases are good. It just depends on how much you pay.

[Note: I am not an employee of the Qt Company, I don't know their sales 
strategy today. This was more or less the thinking 10 years ago during the 
Trolltech and Nokia days]

Suppose you developed the application internally using the open source version 
and invested 20 man-years of effort. Now it's time to ship and you contact the 
sales team. They may ask that you retroactively buy a commercial licence in a 
value between 0 and 20 years' worth. 

The exact value will be decided on a case-by-case basis. It's in the Qt 
Company's interest to get some money rather than none at all, so if 20 years 
of licence fees is unacceptable, they may lower it. Similarly, they may look 
into future revenue: how strategic is it for them to keep you as a client? 
Depending on who you are and what your application is, you could get 0 and a 
future discount!

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel System Software Products



___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Uwe Rathmann]

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 that Qt as a dual licensed technology has some rules 
related to the commercial license option.


I'm not qualified to comment the rules of the commercial options.


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 there to avoid misuse.


Not being clear about what cases are good and which are bad is FUD. The
intended effect is to intimidate users, that would be totally fine with
the LGPL, because they might lose the commercial option in case their
situation changes.

As long as the Qt company is not willing to be crystal clear on this
subject my judgment stands.

What comes to using FUD as sales strategy, that is not what we aim 
for at all.


I attended one of the Qt roadshows in Munich - guess it was 2017. If FUD
is not the intention of the Qt Company you should talk.

Uwe

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Tuukka Turunen]

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 commercial. That rule has nothing to do with any open-source license, but 
only the commercial license of Qt. 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 there to avoid misuse.

I know that dual licensing can be complicated. For that reason it is best to 
talk with our local sales team when moving from open-source to commercial and 
look into the issue together with them. We aim to give a clear and correct view 
of this in our web pages, but as the topic has many angles, it is typically 
easiest to look into this on case by case basis when migrating to commercial. 

What comes to using FUD as sales strategy, that is not what we aim for at all. 
On the contrary we are actively trying to explain the dual licensing in the 
FAQ, videos, web pages, webinars, mailing lists etc exactly to relieve the U 
and D - and having enough and correct information helps with the Fear part as 
well. 

Yours,

Tuukka



On 09/10/2019, 12.07, "Interest on behalf of Uwe Rathmann" 
 wrote:

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 late switch is 
> unfair to companies that are playing by the rule, ...

Please allow me to quote Wikipedia:

"The license allows developers and companies to use and integrate a
software component released under the LGPL into their own (even
proprietary) software without being required by the terms of a strong
copyleft license to release the source code of their own components."

The motivation for not using the LGPL - at least on the desktop - is
usually, that you want to avoid its obligations, when linking
statically. That's all.

There is no inner logic behind bundling the commercial license with
support contracts and the number of developers using it - beside, that
the Qt company makes this connection.

I don't have much opinion on this topic - not my business - but I don't
agree that "fair/unfair" is a valid category in this context.

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

___
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

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[alexander golks]

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

+1

-- 
/*
 *  fprintf (stderr, "Not ELF nor a.out. Don't blame me.\n");
 *linux-2.6.19/arch/sparc64/boot/piggyback.c
 */


pgpW1xRQE7_3V.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Uwe Rathmann]

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 late switch is 
unfair to companies that are playing by the rule, ...


Please allow me to quote Wikipedia:

"The license allows developers and companies to use and integrate a
software component released under the LGPL into their own (even
proprietary) software without being required by the terms of a strong
copyleft license to release the source code of their own components."

The motivation for not using the LGPL - at least on the desktop - is
usually, that you want to avoid its obligations, when linking
statically. That's all.

There is no inner logic behind bundling the commercial license with
support contracts and the number of developers using it - beside, that
the Qt company makes this connection.

I don't have much opinion on this topic - not my business - but I don't
agree that "fair/unfair" is a valid category in this context.

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

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Tuukka Turunen]

“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 late switch is unfair to companies that are playing by 
the rule, but it's probably hard to police for the Qt company.”

Yes, exactly.

Same reasoning behind the “no mixing of items developed with commercial and 
open-source licenses of Qt”. If that was allowed a company with 10 developers 
would have only 1 license to access support 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: [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 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 late switch is unfair to companies that are playing by 
the rule, but it's probably hard to police for the Qt company.

Best regards

Ilya

Le mar. 8 oct. 2019 à 15:30, Melinda Seifert 
mailto:melinda.seif...@qt.io>> a écrit :
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 of Qt and move my code under 
that license?
"This is not permitted without written consent from The Qt Company. If you have 
already started the development with an open-source version of Qt, please 
contact The Qt Company to resolve the issue. If you are unsure of which license 
or version to use when you start development, we recommend you contact The Qt 
Company to advise you on the best choice based on your development needs."

Best Regards,

Melinda Seifert
Regional Director of the Americas
The Qt Company
O: 617-377-7918 | M: 617-413-4479
Qt Customer Case Studies - https://resources.qt.io/customer-stories-all


On 10/8/19, 3:54 AM, "Interest on behalf of Uwe Rathmann" 
mailto:interest-boun...@qt-project.org> on 
behalf of uwe.rathm...@tigertal.de<mailto:uwe.rathm...@tigertal.de>> wrote:

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 right of any seller not to sell.

But your statement implies, that the Qt Company is blacklisting users
because of contributing to Open Source projects. Am I already
blacklisted because of offering code under an Open Source license ?

How does this all fit to the Qt project, that is in parts based on
contributions from Open Source developers. Am I invited to contribute to
the code base, while not being allowed to buy my own contribution
afterwards ?

Uwe

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org<mailto:Interest@qt-project.org>
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest


___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org<mailto: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

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Ilya Diallo]

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 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 late switch is unfair to
companies that are playing by the rule, but it's probably hard to police
for the Qt company.

Best regards

Ilya

Le mar. 8 oct. 2019 à 15:30, Melinda Seifert  a
écrit :

> 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 of Qt and move my
> code under that license?
> "This is not permitted without written consent from The Qt Company. If you
> have already started the development with an open-source version of Qt,
> please contact The Qt Company to resolve the issue. If you are unsure of
> which license or version to use when you start development, we recommend
> you contact The Qt Company to advise you on the best choice based on your
> development needs."
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Melinda Seifert
> Regional Director of the Americas
> The Qt Company
> O: 617-377-7918 | M: 617-413-4479
> Qt Customer Case Studies - https://resources.qt.io/customer-stories-all
>
>
> On 10/8/19, 3:54 AM, "Interest on behalf of Uwe Rathmann" <
> interest-boun...@qt-project.org on behalf of uwe.rathm...@tigertal.de>
> wrote:
>
> 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 right of any seller not to sell.
>
> But your statement implies, that the Qt Company is blacklisting users
> because of contributing to Open Source projects. Am I already
> blacklisted because of offering code under an Open Source license ?
>
> How does this all fit to the Qt project, that is in parts based on
> contributions from Open Source developers. Am I invited to contribute
> to
> the code base, while not being allowed to buy my own contribution
> afterwards ?
>
> Uwe
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Interest] Licensing questions for iOS and Android

[alexander golks]

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.
 */


pgpdN4BcRTmDG.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing questions for iOS and Android

[Tuukka Turunen]

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. 
One person can use many machines to develop across multiple operating systems. 
The persons who are not developing with Qt, do not need a license (e.g. in case 
you have some part of the application not done with Qt). 

We have a FAQ to explain how Qt licensing works:  https://www.qt.io/faq/ 

Yours,

Tuukka

On 08/10/2019, 10.19, "Interest on behalf of Vyacheslav Lanovets" 
 wrote:

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 linking).
All 10 have primary PC with Microsoft Visual Studio for regular
development because it is faster.
Also there is 2 build machines:
1 PC for generating Android builds.
1 Mac for generating iOS builds.

So, how many licenses should the company pay for?
13 licenses (~4 euro a year)? Or 12? Or 10? Or just for 3 Macs? Or
maybe only for 2 developer Macs?

Has anyone investigated the case with the legals?
Opinions?
___
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

Re: [Interest] Licensing questions for iOS and Android

[Jason H]

> 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 linking).
> All 10 have primary PC with Microsoft Visual Studio for regular
> development because it is faster.
> Also there is 2 build machines:
> 1 PC for generating Android builds.
> 1 Mac for generating iOS builds.
>
> So, how many licenses should the company pay for?
> 13 licenses (~4 euro a year)? Or 12? Or 10? Or just for 3 Macs? Or
> maybe only for 2 developer Macs?

I am not sure what the current licensing scheme is, however, following previous 
licensing models, I would not fault you for thinking that you need 10 licenses.
FWIW, AFAICR, I've never heard of Qt licenses being dependent on development 
platform, and have always seen the number of developers and deployment platform 
be what governs.

HTH, YMMV, IANAL.
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Melinda Seifert]

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 of Qt and move my code under 
that license?
"This is not permitted without written consent from The Qt Company. If you have 
already started the development with an open-source version of Qt, please 
contact The Qt Company to resolve the issue. If you are unsure of which license 
or version to use when you start development, we recommend you contact The Qt 
Company to advise you on the best choice based on your development needs."

Best Regards,
 
Melinda Seifert
Regional Director of the Americas
The Qt Company
O: 617-377-7918 | M: 617-413-4479
Qt Customer Case Studies - https://resources.qt.io/customer-stories-all
 

On 10/8/19, 3:54 AM, "Interest on behalf of Uwe Rathmann" 
 wrote:

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 right of any seller not to sell.

But your statement implies, that the Qt Company is blacklisting users 
because of contributing to Open Source projects. Am I already 
blacklisted because of offering code under an Open Source license ?

How does this all fit to the Qt project, that is in parts based on 
contributions from Open Source developers. Am I invited to contribute to 
the code base, while not being allowed to buy my own contribution 
afterwards ?

Uwe

___
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

Re: [Interest] Licensing questions for iOS and Android

[Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest]

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 of it released by the Qt Project, 
not the Qt commercial-only addons).


HTH,
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing questions for iOS and Android

[Yves Maurischat]

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, 
whether Mars and Jupiter align and a million other things. You'll have 
to work it out with someone from TQtC as their licensing scheme changes 
often, is mostly not really shared with outsiders (even with partners) 
and often applied on a case to case base.



Mit freundlichen Grüßen | Kind regards,

*Yves Maurischat*
Senior Software Engineer

basysKom GmbH
Robert-Bosch-Str. 7 | 64293 Darmstadt | Germany
Tel: +49 6151 870 589 -144 | Fax: -199
yves.maurisc...@basyskom.com | www.basyskom.com

Handelsregister: Darmstadt HRB 9352
Geschaeftsfuehrende Partner: Heike Ziegler, Alexander Sorg


Am 08.10.2019 um 09:16 schrieb Vyacheslav Lanovets:

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 linking).
All 10 have primary PC with Microsoft Visual Studio for regular
development because it is faster.
Also there is 2 build machines:
1 PC for generating Android builds.
1 Mac for generating iOS builds.

So, how many licenses should the company pay for?
13 licenses (~4 euro a year)? Or 12? Or 10? Or just for 3 Macs? Or
maybe only for 2 developer Macs?

Has anyone investigated the case with the legals?
Opinions?
___
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

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Uwe Rathmann]

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 right of any seller not to sell.


But your statement implies, that the Qt Company is blacklisting users 
because of contributing to Open Source projects. Am I already 
blacklisted because of offering code under an Open Source license ?


How does this all fit to the Qt project, that is in parts based on 
contributions from Open Source developers. Am I invited to contribute to 
the code base, while not being allowed to buy my own contribution 
afterwards ?


Uwe

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Melinda Seifert]

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) 617-414-4479
www.qt.io


> On Oct 7, 2019, at 6:42 PM, Nikos Chantziaras  wrote:
> 
> 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 now or not, but it was 
> there a while ago.
> 
> 
>> On 07/10/2019 18:57, Colin Worth wrote:
>> 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. I’m in touch 
>> with the Qt office in Boston as well.
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
 On Oct 7, 2019, at 1:55 AM, Uwe Rathmann  wrote:
>>> 
 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
> 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

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Nikos Chantziaras]

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 now or not, but it 
was there a while ago.



On 07/10/2019 18:57, Colin Worth wrote:

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. I’m in touch with the 
Qt office in Boston as well.

Cheers,
Colin


On Oct 7, 2019, at 1:55 AM, Uwe Rathmann  wrote:


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
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Colin Worth]

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. I’m in touch with the 
Qt office in Boston as well.

Cheers,
Colin

> On Oct 7, 2019, at 1:55 AM, Uwe Rathmann  wrote:
> 
>> 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
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest]

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 worry about paid 
licenses, you don't need them".


I'm actually trying to tell the opposite -- remove the all uncertainty 
from your specific use case, by getting an informed opinion by someone 
protecting your interests.


(No, I don't get a % from law firms. :-P)

HTH,
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts



smime.p7s
Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Uwe Rathmann]

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
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest]

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 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts



smime.p7s
Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Uwe Rathmann]

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 commercial license - 
don't believe, that this a good advice.


Maybe this presentation helps:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwTlCBbB3RY

Uwe

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest]

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, make it obvious what people should buy 
or make a package with a displayed price point. I'm sure many just use 
Qt and try as hard as they can to be legit but at some point just gave 
up and say "screw this, let's use the free and hope nobody see it".


We want transparency on this matter one day. I have some project moving 
away of Qt  just because we are unsure if this a valid use case and the 
client doesn't have the time nor the resource for lawyer wasted money.


I get your frustration, but please don't mix the topics:


1) YOU need a lawyer to protect YOUR OWN interests. Licensing is a legal 
topic, which makes it a minefield (depends on the country/legal system, 
your particular domain, how all the licenses you're using interact with 
each other, what certifications mandate, etc.). Licenses like GPL/LGPL 
are also particularly tricky because they carry many obligations.


Therefore, any pre-made answer is not usable; and that's why everyone 
insists on answering "please have an expert look at your case and give 
you their opinion".


While you may get a rough idea of what's going on from online forums and 
videos, are you willing to bet your business strategy and/or expose 
yourself to lawsuits, instead of paying a firm to give you advice? (I 
don't know anyone offering comprehensive legal advice for free. Note 
also that in some countries a hired lawyer that gives you blatantly 
wrong advice can be sued for gross incompetence.)



To state the obvious: of course it's in Qt sales interests to sell you 
Qt licenses, NOT to give you such advice. In Italy we say something like 
"don't ask the innkeeper if the wine they serve is good". Qt sales 
protect Qt interests, not yours.



To state the less obvious (?): you're building a product for whose 
success Qt is a necessary component. Assuming you'll need to continue 
sell and support this product for the foreseeable future, buying 
licenses can  therefore be considered a strategic investment for you -- 
you want/need to keep Qt alive.



2) The actual licensing prices and schemes are not public. Even the 
actual wording of the commercial licenses are not public, AFAIK.


It's a business decision. It can be questioned, like all such decisions.

But note that you need someone anyhow to have a look at the commercial 
license text and tell you what it implies for you. Possibly, someone 
that protects your interests (= your lawyer), and we're back to square one.



3) I'm not sure what the Qt (technical) support has to do with this, to 
be honest.



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). This is a mailing list of 
the Qt Project.



Thanks,
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts



smime.p7s
Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Jérôme Godbout]

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, make it obvious what people should buy or make a package with a 
displayed price point. I'm sure many just use Qt and try as hard as they can to 
be legit but at some point just gave up and say "screw this, let's use the free 
and hope nobody see it".

We want transparency on this matter one day. I have some project moving away of 
Qt  just because we are unsure if this a valid use case and the client doesn't 
have the time nor the resource for lawyer wasted money.

I hope one day Qt step up once and for all on this, the fact that this question 
rise over and over again is a huge indicator of the problem.

I really do like the Qt 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:
> 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, because we need to go through the FDA certification process. 
> The software will be included with a medical device and we may also develop a 
> sub-project that can be sold directly to consumers (its a medical device for 
> amputees) Can someone briefly summarize our options as far as licensing (I 
> have already read and googled many links, read through license terms, etc., 
> even including a suggestion that we need to hire a lawyer, but this seems 
> like a pretty straightforward question.)
>
> 1) Are we free to sell and distribute the software with our product, or as a 
> download, as long as we dynamically link to the Qt libraries (as happens 
> automatically when deploying with mac/windeployqt). Do we need to post any 
> part of our source code online?

Unfortunately it IS a question for your own lawyers. The point is that
you need an authoritative answer from an IP specialist operating in your
country, with knowledge about your specific domain.

Note that you said "open source" Qt, which is meaningless -- different
parts of Qt are covered by different open source licensing schemes
(LGPL3, GPL2/3, LGPL2, ...), that carry very very very different
obligations. You need to audit your source and figure out which ones
you're actually using. The same thing applies for any other 3rd party
library you are using.

And while a license like LGPL3 doesn't mandate publishing the source
code of the application linked against a LGPL3 library, it *still* puts
further constraints on such an application, that may or may not be fine
with you.

There is a number of online videos that might help at getting a rough
idea about whether you'd be fine at using an open source license, but I
cannot stress this enough: they're *not* authoritative answers for your
*specific* case, and you shouldn't risk your entire business strategy
based on what a complete stranger said on the Internet!

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwTlCBbB3RY

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSYDWnsfWUk



>
> 2) If not, how much does commercial licensing cost, not for ongoing 
> development, but just to include Qt with a product, or would that be 
> determined on a case-by-case basis with the QT company.

The quotes are not public; this is a question for your own Qt Sales
representative.


HTH,
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing

[Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest]

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, because we need to go through the FDA certification process. 
The software will be included with a medical device and we may also develop a 
sub-project that can be sold directly to consumers (its a medical device for 
amputees) Can someone briefly summarize our options as far as licensing (I have 
already read and googled many links, read through license terms, etc., even 
including a suggestion that we need to hire a lawyer, but this seems like a 
pretty straightforward question.)

1) Are we free to sell and distribute the software with our product, or as a 
download, as long as we dynamically link to the Qt libraries (as happens 
automatically when deploying with mac/windeployqt). Do we need to post any part 
of our source code online?


Unfortunately it IS a question for your own lawyers. The point is that 
you need an authoritative answer from an IP specialist operating in your 
country, with knowledge about your specific domain.


Note that you said "open source" Qt, which is meaningless -- different 
parts of Qt are covered by different open source licensing schemes 
(LGPL3, GPL2/3, LGPL2, ...), that carry very very very different 
obligations. You need to audit your source and figure out which ones 
you're actually using. The same thing applies for any other 3rd party 
library you are using.


And while a license like LGPL3 doesn't mandate publishing the source 
code of the application linked against a LGPL3 library, it *still* puts 
further constraints on such an application, that may or may not be fine 
with you.


There is a number of online videos that might help at getting a rough 
idea about whether you'd be fine at using an open source license, but I 
cannot stress this enough: they're *not* authoritative answers for your 
*specific* case, and you shouldn't risk your entire business strategy 
based on what a complete stranger said on the Internet!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwTlCBbB3RY



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSYDWnsfWUk






2) If not, how much does commercial licensing cost, not for ongoing 
development, but just to include Qt with a product, or would that be determined 
on a case-by-case basis with the QT company.


The quotes are not public; this is a question for your own Qt Sales 
representative.



HTH,
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts



smime.p7s
Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

[Interest] Licensing

[Colin Worth]

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 
version number, because we need to go through the FDA certification process. 
The software will be included with a medical device and we may also develop a 
sub-project that can be sold directly to consumers (its a medical device for 
amputees) Can someone briefly summarize our options as far as licensing (I have 
already read and googled many links, read through license terms, etc., even 
including a suggestion that we need to hire a lawyer, but this seems like a 
pretty straightforward question.)

1) Are we free to sell and distribute the software with our product, or as a 
download, as long as we dynamically link to the Qt libraries (as happens 
automatically when deploying with mac/windeployqt). Do we need to post any part 
of our source code online?

2) If not, how much does commercial licensing cost, not for ongoing 
development, but just to include Qt with a product, or would that be determined 
on a case-by-case basis with the QT company. 

Thanks very much. 
Colin Worth
BrainCo, Inc.

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

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

[alexander golks]

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 swap 
> the provided Qt-library with his own. The app itself is under the 
> non-compatible EUPL.

i don't know the EUPL, but 
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic states:
"(1) If you statically link against an LGPL'd library, you must also provide 
your application in an object (not necessarily source) format, so that a user 
has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application."

what i interpret as:
as long as you provide at least the object code, if the user requests so, so 
that he can relink himself, you're fine.

i don't know if this meets your problem, and ianal ;)

alex

-- 
/*
 *  printk("; crashing the system because you wanted it\n");
 *  linux-2.6.6/fs/hpfs/super.c
 */
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

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

[Jean-Michaël Celerier]

>  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 them.

Best,

---
Jean-Michaël Celerier
http://www.jcelerier.name

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Trillmann, Jens <
jens.trillm...@governikus.de> wrote:

> 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 to link the iOS
> platformplugin statically because qioseventdispatcher.mm defines a
> custom program entry point (and does some voodoo with setjmp/longjmp). I
> currently also have to link statically against some other modules
> (Qt5GraphicsSupport, Qt5FontDatabaseSupport, Qt5ClipboardSupport), but
> the platform plugin is the most crucial part. qioseventdispatcher.mm and
> 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 swap
> the provided Qt-library with his own. The app itself is under the
> non-compatible EUPL.
>
> Is there a way to build the iOS platformplugin dynamically? There has
> been some interest in building shared libs for iOS in the past, is there
> maybe already a strategy to be LGPL compliant? On Windows there exists
> qtbase/src/winmain, where the program entry point is isolated into
> BSD-licensed source files. Maybe something similiar could be possible?
>
> best regards,
> Jens Trillmann
> ___
> 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

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

[Trillmann, Jens]

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 to link the iOS 
platformplugin statically because qioseventdispatcher.mm defines a 
custom program entry point (and does some voodoo with setjmp/longjmp). I 
currently also have to link statically against some other modules 
(Qt5GraphicsSupport, Qt5FontDatabaseSupport, Qt5ClipboardSupport), but 
the platform plugin is the most crucial part. qioseventdispatcher.mm and 
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 swap 
the provided Qt-library with his own. The app itself is under the 
non-compatible EUPL.

Is there a way to build the iOS platformplugin dynamically? There has 
been some interest in building shared libs for iOS in the past, is there 
maybe already a strategy to be LGPL compliant? On Windows there exists 
qtbase/src/winmain, where the program entry point is isolated into 
BSD-licensed source files. Maybe something similiar could be possible?

best regards,
Jens Trillmann
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing PITA

[Bob Hood]

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 not work out-of-the-box as the Git source seems to be 
targeted on the GPL'ed users only.


AFAIK you have to remove some files and add some others (from a commercial 
source package) to be able to build a commercial version.


Really?  o.O

I might retrieve more detailed information on the process, but I am not sure 
if I am allowed (by the Qt people) to share it - given the fact that there 
seems to be no official howto by them...


Feel free to share it privately, then, if that would make you more 
comfortable.  I get the feeling there aren't enough of us doing their own Qt 
builds on this list to be interested.


___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing PITA

[Bob Hood]

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.


:)

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing PITA

[André Somers]

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 license.Preview Edition
> Expiry Date.
>
> I have the license contents in the %USERPROFILE% folder under the name
> ".qt-license", as all the documents indicate, but it either will not
> see it, or it is not happy with the contents (copied verbatim from the
> account).
>
> Is there some kind of "debug" option I can provide that will tell me
> why it's blinded to my license?
This sounds like exactly the kind of issue you'd contact your commercial
support for?

André

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing PITA

[Rainer Wiesenfarth]

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 users only.

AFAIK you have to remove some files and add some others (from a commercial
source package) to be able to build a commercial version.

I might retrieve more detailed information on the process, but I am not
sure if I am allowed (by the Qt people) to share it - given the fact that
there seems to be no official howto by them...

​Cheers, Rainer​


-- 
Software Engineer | Trimble Imaging Division
Rotebühlstraße 81 | 70178 Stuttgart | Germany
Office +49 711 22881 0 | Fax +49 711 22881 11
http://www.trimble.com/imaging/ | http://www.inpho.de/

Trimble Germany GmbH, Am Prime Parc 11, 65479 Raunheim
Eingetragen beim Amtsgericht Darmstadt unter HRB 83893,
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Frank Heimberg, Jürgen Kesper
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

[Interest] Licensing PITA

[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 license.Preview Edition
Expiry Date.

I have the license contents in the %USERPROFILE% folder under the name 
".qt-license", as all the documents indicate, but it either will not see it, 
or it is not happy with the contents (copied verbatim from the account).


Is there some kind of "debug" option I can provide that will tell me why it's 
blinded to my license?


___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

[Interest] Licensing Questions

[sarah jones]

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 
available to a customer on request.

Has anyone any experience in this area ?
Are my understandings correct?
Are there any obligations on us if using the LPGL?

Thanks

Sarah
  ___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing Questions

[alfa]

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 issue and any possible solutions.

-alfa-
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 12:47 PM, sarah jones qtsa...@outlook.com wrote:
 
 
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 
available to a customer on request.

Has anyone any experience in this area ?
Are my understandings correct?
Are there any obligations on us if using the LPGL?

Thanks

Sarah

___
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

Re: [Interest] Licensing Questions

[Tomasz Siekierda]

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 explain
 on this, because I'm also interested in knowing this issue and any possible
 solutions.

 -alfa-
 On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 12:47 PM, sarah jones qtsa...@outlook.com
 wrote:
 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
 available to a customer on request.

 Has anyone any experience in this area ?
 Are my understandings correct?
 Are there any obligations on us if using the LPGL?

 Thanks

 Sarah


Sarah, as far as I know your findings are correct. With GPLv3, you
need to provide source code of your application when requested. You do
not need to publish the code globally, only your customers can make
the request.

If you choose LGPL, there is no obligation on you to provide the
source code of your application (you still need to provide source code
of Qt, and inform customers that Qt is being used). Some minimal
changes to Qt itself are permitted under Qt license exception.

And if you buy the commercial license from Digia, you are free to do
almost anything ;-)

In all 3 scenarios you can charge money for the distribution of your
application.

Have a good day,
sierdzio
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing Questions

[sarah jones]

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 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 issue and any possible
  solutions.
 
  -alfa-
  On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 12:47 PM, sarah jones qtsa...@outlook.com
  wrote:
  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
  available to a customer on request.
 
  Has anyone any experience in this area ?
  Are my understandings correct?
  Are there any obligations on us if using the LPGL?
 
  Thanks
 
  Sarah
 
 
 Sarah, as far as I know your findings are correct. With GPLv3, you
 need to provide source code of your application when requested. You do
 not need to publish the code globally, only your customers can make
 the request.
 
 If you choose LGPL, there is no obligation on you to provide the
 source code of your application (you still need to provide source code
 of Qt, and inform customers that Qt is being used). Some minimal
 changes to Qt itself are permitted under Qt license exception.
 
 And if you buy the commercial license from Digia, you are free to do
 almost anything ;-)
 
 In all 3 scenarios you can charge money for the distribution of your
 application.
 
 Have a good day,
 sierdzio
  ___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] Licensing Questions

[alexander golks]

there were some discussions on this topic several times now, i feel free to 
just repost some mails on this in Qt-interest Digest, Vol 19, Issue 20.

Today's Topics:

   2. Re: Licensing (Jan)
   3. Re: Licensing (Jeroen De Wachter)
   4. Re: Licensing (Kustaa Nyholm)

--

--

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; format=flowed

Static vs. dynamic was discussed here as well
A response from nokia was posted by thiago:

http://lists.trolltech.com/pipermail/qt-interest/2009-December/016090.html

In short: There is no clear Yes or No. But they suggest to use dynamic 
linking with LGPL'd Qt.

Jan

Am 02.06.2010 14:39, schrieb Kustaa Nyholm:

 this nice gpl,lgpl and commercial discussions...
 i repeat a statement already mentioned in this thread:
 don't trust anyone telling you something about how to behave concerning law
 just trust your paid lawyer.  

 Well, listening to a lawyer is good, but most lawyers don't pay the bill
 and suffer the consequences if the court decided against you in a dispute.
 So in the end it is down to the organization or individual to decide
 what to trust and what not to trust.  
   AS LONG AS you link dynamically to all lgpl code.  


 Dynamic or static linking is no issue here, LGPL allows both.

 Section 6 applies to what has been discussed here ie LGPL library and closed
 source application delivered as an executable.

 There it says (6a) that if you distribute statically linked application
 you also need to distribute it in un-linked form so that the user
 can (re)link it with a modified (improved or different) version
 of the library, if they want. And 6c says that you don't even
 have to distribute the un-linked form, it is enough if you
 promise to deliver it on request.

 6b refers to dynamic linking allowing distribution of the library alongside
 with a dynamically linked application code, but it is worth noting that
 section 5 clearly spells out that an application compiled against the
 library falls outside the scope of the license and thus there is nothing in
 the LGPL license to stop distribution of dynamically linked application code
 in any shape or form as long as it does not contain the library.

 Worth noting is that the last two paragraphs of the section 6 require the
 distribution of the tools and libraries required to (re)link the application
 unless they are normally distributed with the OS.

 This may cause problems if you use libraries or tools that do not allow
 redistribution. For example I don't think Windows comes with a linker
 so static linking might require you to distribute the linker which
 might not be possible if you use M$ tools. On the other hand if you
 use Free tools such as MinGW you might be able to evoke 6c on them.

 br Kusti








 ___
 Qt-interest mailing list
 qt-inter...@trolltech.com
 http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-interest
  


--

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:52:21 +0200
From: Jeroen De Wachter jeroen.dewach...@barco.com
Subject: Re: [Qt-interest] Licensing
To: Jan janus...@gmx.net
Cc: qt-inter...@trolltech.com
Message-ID: 4c065405.50...@barco.com
Content-Type: text/plain;   format=flowed;  charset=iso-8859-1

There's a whole thread on this mailing list regarding that subject 
(Thiago's post was one message in a long list)
I was about to refer to it as well.

Kind regards,

Jeroen

Jan wrote:
 Static vs. dynamic was discussed here as well
 A response from nokia was posted by thiago:

 http://lists.trolltech.com/pipermail/qt-interest/2009-December/016090.html

 In short: There is no clear Yes or No. But they suggest to use dynamic 
 linking with LGPL'd Qt.

 Jan

 Am 02.06.2010 14:39, schrieb Kustaa Nyholm:
 
 this nice gpl,lgpl and commercial discussions...
 i repeat a statement already mentioned in this thread:
 don't trust anyone telling you something about how to behave concerning law
 just trust your paid lawyer.
 
 Well, listening to a lawyer is good, but most lawyers don't pay the bill
 and suffer the consequences if the court decided against you in a dispute.
 So in the end it is down to the organization or individual to decide
 what to trust and what not to trust.
   
   AS LONG AS you link dynamically to all lgpl code.
 
 Dynamic or static linking is no issue here, LGPL allows both.

 Section 6 applies to what has been discussed here ie LGPL library and closed
 source application delivered as an executable.

 There it says (6a) that if you distribute statically linked application
 you also need to distribute it in un-linked form so that the user
 can (re)link it with a modified (improved or different) version