The object files would only be needed if you statically linked, then its upto them how to relink them to create a new executable. No one will bother, but at least you complied with the license by giving them the option.
Of course, object files are not necessary (even legally) for dynamically linked builds as you can just change the DLL.
Thanks once again guys.
Not that I plan on moving to MS Visual Studio, but how does anyone know how the licensing works with applications developed with that? Is it the same as with the commercial license of QT?
A licence is a licence. It doesn't matter what tools you use. LGPL doesn't care. It only says about redistributing the licenced component.
I was just thinking about 'what' libraries are actually 'QT' libraries. The libraries in my project are:
libgcc_s_dw2-1.dll
mingwm10.dll
QtCore4.dll
QtGui4.dll
I assume that the QT libraries are definitely part of the LGPL licence, but are the mingw and libgcc ones? They all came out of the QT installation folder...
http://www.mingw.org/license
These are the "MinGW runtime".
The physicist (10th January 2011)
I couldn't find an explicit list of the dlls that belong to MinGW runtime, but the above licensing statement is pretty flexible!The MinGW base runtime package has been placed in the public domain, and is not governed by copyright. This basically means that you can do what you like with the code.
mingwm10.dll is the runtime. libgcc_s_dw2-1.dll probably falls under the same licence GCC does (which I think is LGPL) but it's possible it's part of the runtime too.
Only QtCore4.dll and QtGui4.dll are Qt libraries, and thereof LGPL. The others are from mingw. They have their own license.
But as far as I know you can deploy them (unchanged) freely without any restrictions.
EDIT: Uh, there was a second page...
Bookmarks