undefined | Better HN

0 pointschipdart1y ago0 comments

> This is a good overview of some of the options, but the author’s specific requirements push it in a specific direction that eliminates a lot of options.

The blogger sounds like they put up a bunch of arbitrary constraints that in normal circumstances wouldn't even be issues.

In the process it's those arbitrary whimsical choices that reject the very obvious choices along with any happy path.

For example, it's baffling that there are already a few FLOSS forks of Qt out there, but the blogger failed to cover them. If the author likes Qt so much, those would supposedly be the obvious choices. But no.

Once again, you are left out of options if you go out of your way to avoid each and any option.

0 pointschipdart1y ago0 comments

> This is a good overview of some of the options, but the author’s specific requirements push it in a specific direction that eliminates a lot of options.

The blogger sounds like they put up a bunch of arbitrary constraints that in normal circumstances wouldn't even be issues.

In the process it's those arbitrary whimsical choices that reject the very obvious choices along with any happy path.

Once again, you are left out of options if you go out of your way to avoid each and any option.

0 comments

6 comments · 1 top-level

Shorel1y ago· 5 in thread

Isn't the issue with Qt exactly what the GPL intended?

In that case, any Qt fork would force him to also comply with the GPL, and supply the source code of his project.

deutschepost1y ago

LGPL. Which eliminates his requirement for a single executable. With LGPL you are only allowed to link dynamically.

singpolyma31y ago

Not true at all. The LGPL does not specify anything about mode of linking or anything like that.

What the LGPL requires is that the end user be able to take the source code for the LGPL part, modify it, recompile it, and then replace the functionality in your binary provided by that part with their new part.

Obviously with dynamic linking this is almist trivial, the end user replaces the so or DLL and done.

With normal static linking, it's only a bit harder. If you ship alongside your binary a bundle of eg .o files and a script that links them together with a .a for the LGPL part for example, this is also compliant without revealing the source code to your non-lgpl part.

5 more replies

jjmarr1y ago

The goal of this is so that end-users can modify or update Qt, the LGPL licensed component.

The LGPL is working as intended.

1 more reply

chipdartOP1y ago

CopperSpice is LGPL, not GPL.

It's not a problem.

alok-g1y ago

Hmm. How could that be when it's based on Qt?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse