2

You might be reading this and about to flag it as a duplicate but wait. It's different from the others. I am wondering if I can use QT, under the LGPL 2.1 license. For single client programs. The programs are only made for one company to use.

Will LPGL be ok?

Will03uk
  • 3,346
  • 8
  • 34
  • 40
  • 4
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because [licensing advice is off-topic on Stack Overflow.](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/274964/1402846) You may be able to get help on [Programmers Stack Exchange, but **read their faq carefully** before proceeding.](http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/7265/when-is-a-software-licensing-question-on-topic) – gunr2171 Jun 05 '15 at 20:41

4 Answers4

6

The basic point of LGPL is that you can freely build anything on top of it as long as you are linking dynamically against the original binaries. Once you modify the library itself, you need to obey LGPL and distribute the code (but only for the library itself).

There are some distribution quirks, but invoking the library installation from your install program was OK.

Milan Babuškov
  • 59,775
  • 49
  • 126
  • 179
Šimon Tóth
  • 35,456
  • 20
  • 106
  • 151
1

LGPL license is not about being commercial or not, it's about licensing the source code. In short:

  • You can keep your own code to yourself
  • If you modify any of the Qt code, you need to provide the source code of those changes to the client, that "one company" you mention. The modifications need to be licensed under LGPL (which means they can give it to anyone else if they want).
Milan Babuškov
  • 59,775
  • 49
  • 126
  • 179
1

You're saying it's for internal use in one company (I'm assuimg your own - else there'd be two comapnies). That means you're not redistributing, just using. This is perfectly fine: LPGL gives you unrestricted rights to use. LGPL restrictions are only effective when distributing the application.

The precise quote is found in clause 0: "The act of running a program using the Library is not restricted"

MSalters
  • 173,980
  • 10
  • 155
  • 350
0

Take the License to a lawyer to read. You don't want to violate the terms and then have to say that "stackoverflow said it was ok".

Nick
  • 3,217
  • 5
  • 30
  • 42