

Adding LGPL v3 to Qt - Tsiolkovsky
http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2014/08/20/adding-lgpl-v3-to-qt/

======
giovannibajo1
The main difference for the potential embedded user base is that LGPLv3 makes
explicit (rather than implicit) that users must be able to run custom code (=
modified qt) on the embedded devices; if your device is locked down (e.g.: no
possibility to do firmware upgrades, or digital signature checks), you must
buy a commercial license.

This is true for applications that use the new LGPLv3-only modules. For
applications using LGPLv2.1 modules, you can still try to freeload by sticking
to a literal reading of the license, though I would personally advise against
it.

------
coldtea
Hmmm, a lot of companies wont touch it now even with a 100-foot pool.

~~~
drdaeman
Why? They have just _added_ an licensing option to a set of existing ones.
LGPLv2.1 and proprietary commercial licensing are still here for anyone who
wish to restrict their users.

~~~
jordigh
No, no, I thought that too, but it's not like that.

They are adding some new modules that are LGPLv3 only. The old ones are
LGPLv2.1, with an option to use LGPLv3, I assume. Hard to tell from their
description without reading the legalese, but they'll need something like it,
because v2.1 and v3 are incompatible with each other.

------
pkorzeniewski
If you have no idea (like me) what's the difference between LGPLv2 and LGPLv3
and what are the implications, here [1] is a good overview.

[1]
[http://www.techlawforum.net/post.cfm/gpl-3-overview](http://www.techlawforum.net/post.cfm/gpl-3-overview)

~~~
cs02rm0
That seems to be GPLv3 rather than LGPLv3 (although it gets a mention).

~~~
pkorzeniewski
Oops, you're right.. Damn, all these licences are so confusing :)

~~~
testbmaa
All the more reason not to use them so widely. They sometimes are invasive and
behave like a virus (GPLv3).

PyQt4 vs pyside is a good example of licensing done wrong, I am not sure
licensing a library under GPL would help others as it restricts the projects
using them to use only GPL. It means that if you just link to it (just use the
names in your program and rely on the client to have installed the right
library) then your project needs to be at least the same version of GPL.

Then we have pyside who reinvents the wheel for people who cannot afford to
pay for a simple layer between python and qt4.

LGPL is fine though for such uses.

But the main point I want to make is that people using those license seldom
read them entirely, which makes it actually a big show stopper and ruin their
effort to help the community.

~~~
belorn
There is this loud minority that only find value in software if they can slap
some restrictions on it, and then get upset that GPL won't allow it.

That people can be so self-absorbed that they can't enjoy being given software
for free is sad. It is also harming the community, and ruining the work of so
many people.

