Yes, there is a lot of FUD about the licensing for Qt when you search online, definitely not helped by how unclear the Qt site's explanation of it is (to me at least)
My boss looks at this page, he sees that open source programs can use Qt for free and that commercial programs need to pay. That's not the case, but the page is carefully worded to prevent him from confidently coming to the correct conclusion.
If this were the extent of the shenanigans, I wouldn't be mad. I like having a "help me sell this to my boss" page. But it isn't the extent of the shenanigans. They went around me to shake someone down on my behalf (as I perceive it). Last time it was my boss. Next time I choose a GUI framework for an open source side project, I'll primarily worry about it being my users.
>he sees that open source programs can use Qt for free and that commercial programs need to pay.
Where does it say that? Can you mention what he is having trouble with? I just took a quick glance at that link in GP and it seems to spell out the obligations of the LGPL pretty clearly on the right side, which are somewhat specific and notably don't include a requirement for your program to be open source. That requirement is only for the GPL components, which is included in the small print on the left.
So, by your own admission, the critical piece of information my boss cares about must be inferred from the fact that it is absent from a sizeable pile of relatively technical details and from the fact that no detail (especially the GPL sub-component callout) implies it in turn.
Making this inference requires you to not only have outside knowledge of open source licenses and the Qt licensing situation, but to be rather confident in said outside knowledge. That's what he had trouble with.
No, my point is that it doesn't have to be inferred, and that the relevant information does seem to be all there. IANAL and this is only based on my own understanding of those licenses, but it seems to do as good a job as a short marketing page probably could. It's not a place where they can reasonably address every common misconception about the LGPL that someone might have. Your boss can't be helped if he is going to assume the worst just from reading what amounts to a single powerpoint slide.
I think that detail about GPL could be easily missed because it's written in small print, but that's a different problem. There are a lot of Qt components so it doesn't make sense to list them all on that page. A full list that can be filtered by LGPL/GPL status is here: https://www.qt.io/features
I'm assuming by outside knowledge you mean the fine print of the license: how is any company supposed to prevent your boss from having to go over that with a lawyer? This isn't even an open source thing, it applies to anyone in the software business. And this is ignoring that the GPL is probably one of the better understood open source licenses at the moment.
> the relevant information does seem to be all there
The key piece of information is absent.
> it seems to do as good a job as a short marketing page probably could
It could have done better in a single short sentence by stating the key piece of information, rather than leaving it to be inferred laboriously from a pile of details.
> It's not a place where they can reasonably address every common misconception
No, but it could have addressed the single largest misconception. It chose not to.
> So Macs are out of question... Can't be signed can they?
... you know that even Apple ships some GPL software on every Mac right ? GPL is 100% fine mac hardware. There are even GPL apps on the appstore. Signing does not prevent you to upload a new version of the app to your own device.
> Am very surprised, after reports a while back of GPL (etc) apps not being approved.
it was an issue until Xcode 7 : prior to that you had to pay 99$ to Apple for the right of uploading something to your own iDevice. Since Xcode 7 this is not necessary anymore.
> Apple ships some GPL software on every Mac right [..] re are even GPL apps on the appstore.
To my knowlage and IANAL, this is only possible with older pre-v3 licenses. v3 licenses specifically prohibit tevoisation, something that Apple's App store TOS effectively mandates by placing restrictions on what App users are allowed to do. I believe this is why apple doesn't ship recent versions of Bash.
While users are still allowed to run software of their choosing on the Mac I would think it would be perfectly acceptable to provide software that could be built and run outside of the mac app store.
