Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Search
  • Get Qt Extensions
  • Unsolved
Collapse
Brand Logo
  1. Home
  2. General talk
  3. The Lounge
  4. Licensing
Forum Updated to NodeBB v4.3 + New Features

Licensing

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Solved The Lounge
13 Posts 9 Posters 2.3k Views 4 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • aha_1980A aha_1980

    @LeLev I might be wrong, but Ithink OPC UA is GPLv3, not LGPL.

    ODБOïO Offline
    ODБOïO Offline
    ODБOï
    wrote on last edited by
    #3

    @aha_1980 sorry, i think i didn't phrase my question well.
    I wanted to know if i'm allowed to use Qt Community Open Source version to develop a commercial product, am I ?

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • SGaistS Offline
      SGaistS Offline
      SGaist
      Lifetime Qt Champion
      wrote on last edited by SGaist
      #4

      Hi,

      WARNING: I am not a lawyer

      Yes you can, no problem with that provided that you abide by the LGPL constraints (if using that license).

      Now, if you want to use QtOpcUA which is indeed Commercial/GPL licensed, then you have to either get a commercial license if you want to keep your software closed sources or you have to abide by the GPL license and provide your application sources on demand to whoever asks for it. Note that GPL doesn't forbid to sell software in any way.

      As always with that kind of question, better ask a competent lawyer.

      [edit: added missing lawyer warning SGaist]

      Interested in AI ? www.idiap.ch
      Please read the Qt Code of Conduct - https://forum.qt.io/topic/113070/qt-code-of-conduct

      ODБOïO 1 Reply Last reply
      4
      • SGaistS SGaist

        Hi,

        WARNING: I am not a lawyer

        Yes you can, no problem with that provided that you abide by the LGPL constraints (if using that license).

        Now, if you want to use QtOpcUA which is indeed Commercial/GPL licensed, then you have to either get a commercial license if you want to keep your software closed sources or you have to abide by the GPL license and provide your application sources on demand to whoever asks for it. Note that GPL doesn't forbid to sell software in any way.

        As always with that kind of question, better ask a competent lawyer.

        [edit: added missing lawyer warning SGaist]

        ODБOïO Offline
        ODБOïO Offline
        ODБOï
        wrote on last edited by
        #5

        @SGaist thank you very much

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • fcarneyF Offline
          fcarneyF Offline
          fcarney
          wrote on last edited by
          #6

          IANAL, if you want legal advice get a lawyer. If you want general perceptions about licensing that may not be accurate then read on.

          @LeLev said in Licensing:

          I can :
          Commercial Use

          Yes, for LGPL you can do commercial. Technically with GPL you can too, but that will change what you are required to distribute. But for simplicity stick with LGPL.

          Modify

          You may modify your own code as much as you want. However, if you modify Qt libraries AND distribute those modified libraries, you must provide source only for those libraries.

          Distribute

          Yes, you can distribute LGPL and GPL libraries as much as you want.

          Place Warranty

          ?

          Use Patent Claims

          ?

          I can not :
          Sublicense

          You cannot change the original license of the LGPL/GPL projects.

          Hold Liable

          ?

          I have to :
          Include Original

          For LGPL libraries you have to include/give access to the source for those libraries. This is easy as you can just point to Qt for access. If you made changes to the LGPL libraries then you must include those changes/give access.

          State Changes

          ?

          Disclose Source

          Same as include original.

          Include License

          Yes, I think.

          Include Copyright

          Same.

          Include Install Instructions

          Only if your nice.

          If you distribute projects with dynamic libraries that are LGPL then you only have to provide access to source code to the LGPL libraries if you made changes to them. You don't have to provide source for the code you write. If you distribute projects with GPL libraries in them then you have to provide access to the source code for the entire project. This is because GPL licensed code doesn't have the linking exception.

          With either LGPL or GPL you can create commercial projects. However, GPL projects will require you to provide your own source code be licensed under a GPL compatible license and provided to the end user. This may or may not fit your particular business model. For some companies its fits their model, others is does not. If distributing the source code with your project does not fit your business model then do not use GPL licensed code. Stick to LGPL, MIT, BSD, Apache, etc licensed libraries. These licenses allow you to license your own code under whatever license you want and does not require distribution.

          Also note, that not everything Qt provides is LGPL. You must pay attention to what is GPL vs LGPL. Fortunately the Qt documentation is very clear on what is GPL/LGPL. So read the docs carefully.

          Note, that to meet the requirements of LGPL with a library you need to stick with dynamic linking. If you need static linking you may need to consider a commercial license. Some platforms require the project to be statically linked. If you choose one of those platforms it may push you to a commercial license. I think iOS is one of those. Not 100% sure.

          There are probably better forums than this one for these kinds of questions.

          C++ is a perfectly valid school of magic.

          SGaistS ODБOïO 2 Replies Last reply
          7
          • fcarneyF fcarney

            IANAL, if you want legal advice get a lawyer. If you want general perceptions about licensing that may not be accurate then read on.

            @LeLev said in Licensing:

            I can :
            Commercial Use

            Yes, for LGPL you can do commercial. Technically with GPL you can too, but that will change what you are required to distribute. But for simplicity stick with LGPL.

            Modify

            You may modify your own code as much as you want. However, if you modify Qt libraries AND distribute those modified libraries, you must provide source only for those libraries.

            Distribute

            Yes, you can distribute LGPL and GPL libraries as much as you want.

            Place Warranty

            ?

            Use Patent Claims

            ?

            I can not :
            Sublicense

            You cannot change the original license of the LGPL/GPL projects.

            Hold Liable

            ?

            I have to :
            Include Original

            For LGPL libraries you have to include/give access to the source for those libraries. This is easy as you can just point to Qt for access. If you made changes to the LGPL libraries then you must include those changes/give access.

            State Changes

            ?

            Disclose Source

            Same as include original.

            Include License

            Yes, I think.

            Include Copyright

            Same.

            Include Install Instructions

            Only if your nice.

            If you distribute projects with dynamic libraries that are LGPL then you only have to provide access to source code to the LGPL libraries if you made changes to them. You don't have to provide source for the code you write. If you distribute projects with GPL libraries in them then you have to provide access to the source code for the entire project. This is because GPL licensed code doesn't have the linking exception.

            With either LGPL or GPL you can create commercial projects. However, GPL projects will require you to provide your own source code be licensed under a GPL compatible license and provided to the end user. This may or may not fit your particular business model. For some companies its fits their model, others is does not. If distributing the source code with your project does not fit your business model then do not use GPL licensed code. Stick to LGPL, MIT, BSD, Apache, etc licensed libraries. These licenses allow you to license your own code under whatever license you want and does not require distribution.

            Also note, that not everything Qt provides is LGPL. You must pay attention to what is GPL vs LGPL. Fortunately the Qt documentation is very clear on what is GPL/LGPL. So read the docs carefully.

            Note, that to meet the requirements of LGPL with a library you need to stick with dynamic linking. If you need static linking you may need to consider a commercial license. Some platforms require the project to be statically linked. If you choose one of those platforms it may push you to a commercial license. I think iOS is one of those. Not 100% sure.

            There are probably better forums than this one for these kinds of questions.

            SGaistS Offline
            SGaistS Offline
            SGaist
            Lifetime Qt Champion
            wrote on last edited by
            #7

            @fcarney said in Licensing:

            Note, that to meet the requirements of LGPL with a library you need to stick with dynamic linking. If you need static linking you may need to consider a commercial license. Some platforms require the project to be statically linked. If you choose one of those platforms it may push you to a commercial license. I think iOS is one of those. Not 100% sure.

            You don't need to stick to dynamic linking however you have to provide the built artefacts for your libraries/applications so that people can relink these to the version they want of a library. Since it's a none obvious procedure nor an easy situation to maintain, people usually stay with dynamic linking.

            Interested in AI ? www.idiap.ch
            Please read the Qt Code of Conduct - https://forum.qt.io/topic/113070/qt-code-of-conduct

            Y 1 Reply Last reply
            5
            • fcarneyF fcarney

              IANAL, if you want legal advice get a lawyer. If you want general perceptions about licensing that may not be accurate then read on.

              @LeLev said in Licensing:

              I can :
              Commercial Use

              Yes, for LGPL you can do commercial. Technically with GPL you can too, but that will change what you are required to distribute. But for simplicity stick with LGPL.

              Modify

              You may modify your own code as much as you want. However, if you modify Qt libraries AND distribute those modified libraries, you must provide source only for those libraries.

              Distribute

              Yes, you can distribute LGPL and GPL libraries as much as you want.

              Place Warranty

              ?

              Use Patent Claims

              ?

              I can not :
              Sublicense

              You cannot change the original license of the LGPL/GPL projects.

              Hold Liable

              ?

              I have to :
              Include Original

              For LGPL libraries you have to include/give access to the source for those libraries. This is easy as you can just point to Qt for access. If you made changes to the LGPL libraries then you must include those changes/give access.

              State Changes

              ?

              Disclose Source

              Same as include original.

              Include License

              Yes, I think.

              Include Copyright

              Same.

              Include Install Instructions

              Only if your nice.

              If you distribute projects with dynamic libraries that are LGPL then you only have to provide access to source code to the LGPL libraries if you made changes to them. You don't have to provide source for the code you write. If you distribute projects with GPL libraries in them then you have to provide access to the source code for the entire project. This is because GPL licensed code doesn't have the linking exception.

              With either LGPL or GPL you can create commercial projects. However, GPL projects will require you to provide your own source code be licensed under a GPL compatible license and provided to the end user. This may or may not fit your particular business model. For some companies its fits their model, others is does not. If distributing the source code with your project does not fit your business model then do not use GPL licensed code. Stick to LGPL, MIT, BSD, Apache, etc licensed libraries. These licenses allow you to license your own code under whatever license you want and does not require distribution.

              Also note, that not everything Qt provides is LGPL. You must pay attention to what is GPL vs LGPL. Fortunately the Qt documentation is very clear on what is GPL/LGPL. So read the docs carefully.

              Note, that to meet the requirements of LGPL with a library you need to stick with dynamic linking. If you need static linking you may need to consider a commercial license. Some platforms require the project to be statically linked. If you choose one of those platforms it may push you to a commercial license. I think iOS is one of those. Not 100% sure.

              There are probably better forums than this one for these kinds of questions.

              ODБOïO Offline
              ODБOïO Offline
              ODБOï
              wrote on last edited by
              #8

              @fcarney Thank you very much for the details

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • SGaistS SGaist

                @fcarney said in Licensing:

                Note, that to meet the requirements of LGPL with a library you need to stick with dynamic linking. If you need static linking you may need to consider a commercial license. Some platforms require the project to be statically linked. If you choose one of those platforms it may push you to a commercial license. I think iOS is one of those. Not 100% sure.

                You don't need to stick to dynamic linking however you have to provide the built artefacts for your libraries/applications so that people can relink these to the version they want of a library. Since it's a none obvious procedure nor an easy situation to maintain, people usually stay with dynamic linking.

                Y Offline
                Y Offline
                yisqt
                wrote on last edited by
                #9

                @SGaist Does commercial license allow distribution of either statically or dynamically linked libs/executables without publication of own (non-Qt, but using Qt) source code?
                Commercial license is bound to a specific user so how should commercial license be associated with a company or product rather than individual developing software product with it at a moment?

                JKSHJ 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • Y yisqt

                  @SGaist Does commercial license allow distribution of either statically or dynamically linked libs/executables without publication of own (non-Qt, but using Qt) source code?
                  Commercial license is bound to a specific user so how should commercial license be associated with a company or product rather than individual developing software product with it at a moment?

                  JKSHJ Offline
                  JKSHJ Offline
                  JKSH
                  Moderators
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #10

                  Hi, and welcome!

                  @yisqt said in Licensing:

                  Does commercial license allow distribution of either statically or dynamically linked libs/executables without publication of own (non-Qt, but using Qt) source code?

                  Yes.

                  Commercial license is bound to a specific user so how should commercial license be associated with a company or product rather than individual developing software product with it at a moment?

                  This is a question for The Qt Company.

                  Qt Doc Search for browsers: forum.qt.io/topic/35616/web-browser-extension-for-improved-doc-searches

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • JoeCFDJ Offline
                    JoeCFDJ Offline
                    JoeCFD
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #11

                    https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtmodules.html#gpl-licensed-addons
                    For those modules it may be better to pay for commercial use.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • J Offline
                      J Offline
                      jackfarrah1991
                      Banned
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #12
                      This post is deleted!
                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • S Offline
                        S Offline
                        samrich
                        Banned
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #13
                        This post is deleted!
                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0

                        • Login

                        • Login or register to search.
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Categories
                        • Recent
                        • Tags
                        • Popular
                        • Users
                        • Groups
                        • Search
                        • Get Qt Extensions
                        • Unsolved