Thread: QT5 for GUI programming or?

Originally Posted by c99tutorial

I find it amazing that so many people, when wondering how to comply with the LGPL for their combined work, seem to rely on word of mouth rather on the license text itself. This is from 4.d. of the version 3 text on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.txt

That is because GPL is worded in legalese, which most people don't want to read, or cannot properly understand. The world does not read legalese, which is why we're having this problem. If they would just make the license available in clear terms, we wouldn't even be having this discussion!

Clearly, the second paragraph refers to a DLL or shared library (.so on linux).
The first paragraph is more unclear. It appears to refer to making available the source in compiled form, but it also mentions more terms that you have failed to include. I fail to see exactly what "minimal corresponding source" refers to (again, legalese text makes the definition unclear). Again, section 6 of the GPL is unclear.

I find it amazing that you can refer people to such a complicated and harder to understand and read license. It's not getting anywhere.

Originally Posted by Elysia

That is because GPL is worded in legalese

The world does not read legalese, which is why we're having this problem. If they would just make the license available in clear terms, we wouldn't even be having this discussion!

Ahem... aren't all licenses and agreements? While we're at it, maybe you can you help me to cut through the legalese in my rental contract? Do I stand a high risk of getting sued for some kind of damages when I return the property? Such problems are better handled by lawyers, not software engineers.

Anyway the real point is if you ever find yourself in a legal dispute and you try to tell the judge "Well, the license said this, but some nice, well meaning folks on the Internet told me I was allowed to do that..." I really doubt this is going to be in your favour. IANAL.

Originally Posted by c99tutorial

Anyway the real point is if you ever find yourself in a legal dispute and you try to tell the judge "Well, the license said this, but some nice, well meaning folks on the Internet told me I was allowed to do that..." I really doubt this is going to be in your favour. IANAL.

Which is probably why Elysia chooses to take a more conservative approach to the license (static linking with LGPL library? Must make source code available) rather than the more liberal "must make object code available to relink", to be on the safe side you know. And I understand him, I generally go for "LPGL? Closed source? Dynamic link it!" and "GPL? Source code must be made available" and never deviate from that.

Originally Posted by c99tutorial

Anyway the real point is if you ever find yourself in a legal dispute and you try to tell the judge "Well, the license said this, but some nice, well meaning folks on the Internet told me I was allowed to do that..." I really doubt this is going to be in your favour. IANAL.

Ummm... yeah. Hence the conservative approach of only using what I absolutely can tell and know. The finer details I'd rather leave to lawyers.

Btw, the rental contract is actually much easier to read.