How the fuck do I legally distribute an open-source program I made with Qt? If I host it on github...

How the fuck do I legally distribute an open-source program I made with Qt? If I host it on github, do I also have to put a .zip containing the entire fucking Qt source code in the repo? And bundle that 73MB .zip with every release? If anyone has any experience with this shit, please enlighten me because I don't know what the fuck is going on.

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Could you just list it as a dependency?

Unless you're static linking you're under no obligation to redistribute Qt itself. The LGPL is nice that way.

>If anyone has any experience with this shit, please enlighten me because I don't know what the fuck is going on.
I'm confused. Your post seems to imply that you can write code, so it would stand to reason that you are literate enough to read and understand the Qt license.

Not as far as I know because the distributable source must be "under my control"

Can I just bundle the Qt .dll/.so files and the Qt license.txt?

>Can I just bundle the Qt .dll/.so files and the Qt license.txt?
Yes. If you're not distributing source to the app, users of your app must be able to swap out the Qt libraries that you provide with their own.

Why not statically link? If your program is open source then you're fine.

What the fuck does being able to write software has to do with his ability do understand a intellectual property license you fucking imbecile?

Does knowing some programming language suddenly makes him a lawyer who understands property law you fucking dipshit?

>What the fuck does being able to write software has to do with his ability do understand a intellectual property license you fucking imbecile?

If you can't understand this, consider killing yourself.
gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html

Literally proving my point

Statically linking seems more trouble than it's worth. I've read that if I statically link Qt I have to distribute the entire Qt source with the program to comply with LGPLv3, but I've also read that you can't statically link Qt at all unless you buy their license which makes it not LGPLv3.

QT-libre is under GPL, so you can take from source code stuff you need. Just use your brain.

Paid QT is only support and extra platforms. That's it. And it comes under EULA, and you can't do anything to it.

Huh? You must be illiterate too.

>I've read that if I statically link Qt I have to distribute the entire Qt source with the program to comply with LGPLv3, but I've also read that you can't statically link Qt at all unless you buy their license which makes it not LGPLv3.

You should try reading the LGPLv3 license.
I linked it above.
Seriously, if you're capable of the abstract thought required to write non-trivial C++ programs, then you're capable of understanding the license.

You can statically link. Your users need a way to link your software with a newer version of Qt than what you ship. Think about what that means.

If you only ship Qt dll/so files + your binary, you're fine (users can replace the Qt libraries)
If you only ship a statically linked binary but provide code, you're fine (users can recompile the app with their own Qt)
If you ship a statically linked binary plus object files, you're fine (users can re-link with their own Qt).

Go read the license.

Forget Qt.

Use gtkmm. C++ binding for GTK+. Inkscape, VMware and GParted were written with it.

What if he wants GUI for current age?

How many times are you going to post this you faggot

html css and javascript

>gtk

I have no idea what Qt is or does, sorry

in the gpl, you're only required to distribute the source code if someone asks for it
if someone is so retarded to not find the qt code online and asks for it, just send them the code

GTK is garbage-tier, Linux-only shit. It's literally the virgin UI toolkit, as opposed to the Chad framework that is Qt.

the free license requires that it's a DLL