@ekke thanks for sharing! still not clear what
but sounds complicated for me as a mobile business app developer
really sorry that there is no Indie mobile dev license from Qt
I asked and got answer that they have tried this some years ago with no
Some years ago I moved from BlackBerryOS7 (JavaME) to BlackBerry10
This was first time I had to develop in C++ / Qt. BB10 Cascades was great
UX and performance.
So I also tried Qt itself, but performance of QQC1 was poor and I stopped.
Later BB10 died and I tried again to develop mobile apps with Qt. At that
time just first preview of QQC2 came out and I was impressed by UX and
So I started to develop mobille Apps using QQC2 and in the meantime my
apps have native speed.
Also had some sessions at dev conferences where I talked about Qt for
Always same feedback from devs: looks great, but the costs ...
so now with QQC2 Qt is a great solution for mobile, but many devs cannot
use it because of license - very sorry about that
I'm using the startup license - but even the startup license info is
hidden at Qt's web sites. If you don't know about and search explicitely
for 'Qt start-up' you won't found https://www1.qt.io/start-up-plan/
Qt really has the potential to become a great player for mobile apps if
license model would be changed.
I can't speak for IOS, but at least on Android, all Qt libraries are
packed inside the application apk as .so files, so no static linking there.
It seems the "go-to" reply on the list and from Qt in general is, "just
buy the license". Somewhat shortsighted, but understandable as it is, Qt is
a business, out to make a profit. However, and as I'm surely not alone in
thinking, I really don't get this approach towards small-timers. The
license cost just isn't feasible for a lone couch coder with a pet project,
who just want to put a $1 proprietary app on the store. Most those kinds of
apps never make much sales anyway and Qt is quickly excluded from the list
of candidate frameworks, due to this perceived upfront cost.
The side effect of supporting indie devs and tinkerers are a lot more
profound though. That is where the ecosystem grows. Bigger ecosystem = more
growth opportunity for the "business" down the line.
It's a shame that many devs are left with the same impression as yourself,
and easily jump ship to React Native or similar. Qt could easily be the
defacto standard for mobile app development. It's just not the narrative
being supported by the Qt corp. Hence, you won't find any official guide or
writeup on how to publish a closed source LGPL paid app on the app store.
As far as I can tell though, there's really no reason why you can't
publish a paid app, which is still compliant.
You need to let people relink against other versions of Qt, but that
simply entails making object files available on request. If ever one is
Post by Sylvain Pointeau
My mistake, I understood the question was about to make my app GPL
I would agree with you for the desktop version but I don't think that it
is feasible for a mobile app (is it not statically linked BTW?)
and I also understood the app store was not GPL friendly, but maybe my
knowledge is outdated.
Le lun. 28 mai 2018 Ã 19:37, Jean-MichaÃ«l Celerier <
Post by René Hansen Post by Sylvain Pointeau
I thought about it but that does not work for all projects, and I
donât see the business model in that case for my app.
in which case would using Qt under the LGPL affect your business model ?
You don't have to publish your sources, only under the GPL.
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Sylvain Pointeau <
Post by Sylvain Pointeau Post by René Hansen
Just make your app LGPL compliant and use Qt anyway.
I thought about it but that does not work for all projects, and I donât
see the business model in that case for my app.
Interest mailing list
Interest mailing list